Extremely doubtful. In the past all the critical functions went on as usual.
1
You know which group of government employees never seems to miss a paycheck in the face of a shutdown or partisan gridlock? Congress.
Seems as if the kids are in the sandbox again and one of them wants the toys of the others.
Ohh wait, these kids are not kids but "grownups"...
Ohh wait, these kids are not kids but "grownups"...
The DHS is just another big government bureaucracy created by a Republican who claimed to be for small government, i.e. Federal Department of Education. Shut them both down.
The GOP. They get control of the congress and the VERY FIRST thing they do is play their idiotic shutdown game. It's like giving your kid the keys to the car and having him pull out of the driveway, straight into a tree.
If DHS does shut down, even partially, and there's a successful attack on US soil, I think you can say goodbye to the Republican Party, forever.
If DHS does shut down, even partially, and there's a successful attack on US soil, I think you can say goodbye to the Republican Party, forever.
3
thank you very much
How can you call this a "shutdown when 85%of the employees still have to go to work? How can you require 85% of the workforce to work without pay? If the Republicans want to refuse to fund an agency the entire agency should be shut down. I'm sick of the Republican's childish games. Obama has been elected as our President, not once but twice.
4
The pending house bill would simply defund Homeland Security only to the extent that it governs immigration performance under the dictates of Obama's unconstitutional executive order relating to illegal immigrants. What, in heavens name is the big deal?
I live about 20 miles from the I-5 crossing into Canada in Washington State and trust me - they will not miss 15% of their staff.
let it shut down it was a little bit excessive in the first place local agencies can handle our security. if there's some money to be had redirected to agencies. homeland security was just too much big brother its times done.
Are the Senate democrats awake. Let them amend it. The House did it's job. Now it's up to the Senate
1
Funding bills must start in the house. I guess you were asleep that day in your high school civics class
1
Your sarcasm is infantile. The house has done their funding job, and defunding
Good. DHS is corrupt and useless.
2
Good thought. Terrorists are just hoping DHS gets shut down. And if you're anti-immigration, who's going to stop additional flow into the country? Man! Think it through!
3
This is all on the shoulders of Obama. These are the consequences of unilateral action by Obama to grant amnesty to FIVE MILLION illegal aliens. He is directly to blame for this latest gov't impasse.
4
Wrong!
The uber right-wing, anti-Obama GOP is solely responsible for this legislative impasse and critical threat to US security.
The uber right-wing, anti-Obama GOP is solely responsible for this legislative impasse and critical threat to US security.
4
@Rudi Hagen
Sorry you drank the Kool Aid. I don't think there is any antidote for the propaganda you have imbibed -- unless perhaps it's a middle school class in government, in which you could learn some of the niceties of how our government works which Fox News won't reveal, including a definition of "Executive Order"; "amnesty"'; and why "unilateral action" is sometimes the only course when a POTUS is faced by an obstructionist majority in the Congress which will do anything to thwart him, even if it means shutting down the government -- again.
Sorry you drank the Kool Aid. I don't think there is any antidote for the propaganda you have imbibed -- unless perhaps it's a middle school class in government, in which you could learn some of the niceties of how our government works which Fox News won't reveal, including a definition of "Executive Order"; "amnesty"'; and why "unilateral action" is sometimes the only course when a POTUS is faced by an obstructionist majority in the Congress which will do anything to thwart him, even if it means shutting down the government -- again.
4
There we go again the party of no standing in the way of a working government.
3
Really stupid move on the past of the Republicans. The lame duck President can take a hit. They have to continue to get elected.
6
Democrats just voted for the fourth time to keep the DHS bill from proceeding.
4
No administrative oversight and no pay for labor. This is exactly the Republican version of "government" and what a POTUS from Koch Inc. would bring us. Thanks for the preview.
7
This is blackmail, pure and simple. If the Republicans want an immigration bill, pass an immigration bill. If they want to secure the country, pass a clean Homeland Security bill. Otherwise they might as well attach every Republican wish-list idea to Homeland Security: how about repeal of Obamacare and making abortion illegal as other riders? I repeat, nothing more than political blackmail.
10
You are aware that Obama's amnesties are to be administered through DHS, funded through appropriations for DHS?
The House does not want to pass an immigration bill that bears any resemblance to what Obama is trying to do and they do not want to fund having Obama do an end around using DHS resources to do it. Funding bills originate in the House. The House is doing precisely what they are supposed to do under the Constitution.
The House does not want to pass an immigration bill that bears any resemblance to what Obama is trying to do and they do not want to fund having Obama do an end around using DHS resources to do it. Funding bills originate in the House. The House is doing precisely what they are supposed to do under the Constitution.
2
@Kurfco --
Uh -- I thought that under the Constitution the House was supposed to be governing, not throwing a tantrum.
Uh -- I thought that under the Constitution the House was supposed to be governing, not throwing a tantrum.
4
People! Stop complaining! We stayed home for the 2014 mid-terms. We have the government we don't want because we refused to vote!
9
Just think, these frauds get paid $174,000 annually to be stupid and selfish.
5
I can speak only for myself but when politicians shut down vital security services I hope those that were instrumental in shutting down those services are most affected.
2
One would think the repubs would learn their lessons from these shutdowns.
But…then that assumes, they're capable.
But…then that assumes, they're capable.
3
If this is what it takes to stop 10+ million illegals from getting virtual amnesty, it's worth it.
3
You know what's even worse than Obama's plan? For every illegal immigrant who will be protected, there will be one or more that will think they are among the protected class, so the entire population of illegal immigrants will feel as though there is no longer any functioning immigration system whatsoever. This plan totally undercuts our formal immigration system.
2
There has never been any issue about 10 million "illegals". This is about jeopardizing the security of the United States in order to deport Dreamers and the parents of American children. Previous presidents set precedents for such delays.
There is no precedent for shutting down the national security of the United States for a partisan issue, especially this hostage-taking add-on to a normal budget bill.
But some Republicans think an ISIL attack on a shopping mall or two or on other Americans is "worth it"?
There is no precedent for shutting down the national security of the United States for a partisan issue, especially this hostage-taking add-on to a normal budget bill.
But some Republicans think an ISIL attack on a shopping mall or two or on other Americans is "worth it"?
4
I sure wish there were a way to give those directly affected by illegal immigration 5 votes, while those in Vermont, thinking warm and fuzzy thoughts about it, with no experience, don't get any.
2
This is a great example of how dysfunctional our Federal government has become. The only thing all parties have in common is a lack of leadership and mutual respect. It's a win at all cost mentality. This is not what I elected my representatives to do.
7
Requiring people to show up for work without pay sounds an awful lot like involuntary servitude to me. Don't we have an Amendment about that? Ah yes, the 13th, in fact. We have a law against peonage, too. (Peonage (/ˈpiːɒn/, from Spanish peón [peˈon]) is a type of involuntary servitude of laborers (peons) having little control over their employment conditions. Thank you, Google.)
5
"... sounds an awful lot like involuntary servitude to me."
Unlike slaves, government employees would get paid eventually.
Unlike slaves, government employees would get paid eventually.
1
I am not an expert on slavery, but my understanding is that, unlike TSA workers, slaves did not get full benefits, vacations, maternity/paternity leave, or pensions, and could not leave any time they wanted.
2
@Steve USA
"Unlike slaves, government employees would get paid eventually."
I think they would get paid in the twinkling of an eye -- or perhaps their paychecks would never be interrupted -- if ALL government employees, including and especially members of Congress, were included in the shutdown and payroll stoppages.
"Unlike slaves, government employees would get paid eventually."
I think they would get paid in the twinkling of an eye -- or perhaps their paychecks would never be interrupted -- if ALL government employees, including and especially members of Congress, were included in the shutdown and payroll stoppages.
3
Both Democrats and Republicans regularly threaten to end the world if they don't get their way. It's a tried and true method for securing concessions from each other. The process is routine. The world seldom ends. The suggestion that we need to write our wills and say our last good byes is alarmist, at best. FYI, the DHS currently reports no active alerts. Apparently, it's not all that concerned that the world is ending.
3
Can you cite a recent example of Democrats "threatening to end the world if they don't get their way"?
6
Sure. While Boehner was threatening to cut off HLS funding in the House, Scumer was threatening to do the same in the Senate.
Time to stop this nonsense. If the agency is not funded then truly shut it down. You can't fly because no TSA, call your congressman. Ditto border crossings. The only way to bring these idiots to their collective senses is for their actions to have real consequences, otherwise the games continue.
5
This is clearly not a "profile in courage" moment for Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner. Certainly he needs to educate many of his colleagues who mistakenly believe they are defending the Constitution. Mr. Boehner needs to point out that perhaps they read Article III that establishes the third branch of government--the judiciary--to resolve disputes between the Executive and Congressional branches. He could also point out that the courts are already considering the legality of President Obama's executive action on immigration to redirect deportations so that intact families are not broken apart. The inability of the House Republican caucus to uphold the Constitution they've sworn to obey is serious enough, but to do so at the risk of the safety of the American people when terrorists are threatening the homeland borders on the criminal.
7
One wonders when the Republicans will understand that holding the federal government hostage ... is bad government, and the public blames them for it.
7
One wonders when liberals will understand that Congress exercising the power given it under the constitution is not holding the federal government hostage - it may be politically unwise but it is not a hostage crisis.. When a President starts government by executive order we are on a very slippery slope.
The President has made a big power move, daring Congress to do something about it and they are threatening to do just that. This may be a chicken or egg thing but it is by no means holding the government hostage. Respect the constitution and stop speaking in bumper sticker slogans.
The President has made a big power move, daring Congress to do something about it and they are threatening to do just that. This may be a chicken or egg thing but it is by no means holding the government hostage. Respect the constitution and stop speaking in bumper sticker slogans.
5
How do you get to thinking Republicans are "holding the federal government hostage"? Republicans in the House passed a bill and the Republicans in the Senate have voted repeatedly to advance it. Who is holding whom hostage?
2
Stop the caterwauling! The GOP has done anything in Good Faith since President Obama was elected. Get real.
3
Once again both the Administration and Congress demonstrate an extraordinary dereliction of duty. This is the product of a complete absence of leadership. At a moment in time when there is heightened concern about domestic terrorism this Government freezes up based upon petty self interest and gamesmanship!
Complete and absolute incompetence.
Should another 9/11 type incident take place the administration and Congress will have blood on their hands.
We have lost our way.
Complete and absolute incompetence.
Should another 9/11 type incident take place the administration and Congress will have blood on their hands.
We have lost our way.
2
"... both the Administration and Congress ..."
The administration isn't threatening a shutdown, so why do you say "both"?
The administration isn't threatening a shutdown, so why do you say "both"?
4
It takes two to make a zero sum game. The administration for a clear lack of leadership in constantly getting into this predicament and a complete lack of leadership on both side of the aisle for its inability to accomplish anything. The system is broken; media, money and getting re-elected seems to be their only concerns.
1
Republicans include a poison pill in a standard budget bill to force the deportation of 600,000 Dreamers, kids who were brought to this country as children and never knew another home, perhaps do not know a language other than English.
These are young people who have committed no crime, who want to contribute to this country, get their degrees, serve in the military. Why do Republicans want to condemn the children for the crimes of their parents? Why do Republicans want parents to desert their American-born children? The great majority of Americans disagree.
And now to try to force this sickening policy on America that will punish these innocents, Republicans jeopardize national security and risk terrorist attacks in this country at a time when ISIS is recruiting and threatening.
"This country has come to feel the same when (the GOP) Congress is in session as when the baby gets hold of a hammer." Will Rogers.
These are young people who have committed no crime, who want to contribute to this country, get their degrees, serve in the military. Why do Republicans want to condemn the children for the crimes of their parents? Why do Republicans want parents to desert their American-born children? The great majority of Americans disagree.
And now to try to force this sickening policy on America that will punish these innocents, Republicans jeopardize national security and risk terrorist attacks in this country at a time when ISIS is recruiting and threatening.
"This country has come to feel the same when (the GOP) Congress is in session as when the baby gets hold of a hammer." Will Rogers.
8
Threats of shutting down, by unfunding, major portions of the federal government should be rendered nugatory by inseparably yoking the funding of essential operations of the Executive branch to the funding of essential operations of the Legislative branch. Our whole government needs to function smoothly every day, without political games-playing by ignoramuses in the Congress.
4
The 30,000 who are furloughed will be paid anyway. Typical of how stupid these things are. In 1995 we were furloughed for 4 days and in 2013 another 4 days. Thanks for the paid vacation I really enjoyed it. Some agencies in 2013 were off for 3 weeks and all paid. LOL. Thank you Congress.
4
Many on this thread seem to think the legislative process works like this:
(1) President sends draft of bill to House with yellow note on it, saying: "type this up and I will sign it".
(2) House types it up, spending a week or so with any member who wishes able to stand up and appear on CSpan.
(3) Bill is sent to the Senate.
(4) Senate proofreads it and any Senators wanting to stand up and get on CSpan get their chance.
(5) Bill is sent to president for signature.
(6) President's highly paid proofreaders make sure it is exactly the same as the draft sent over in point 1, above.
(7) President takes out pen, with an enthusiastic wave of his arm, pronounces the bill "clean", and signs it.
Sorry. That's not how it works. If it were, we could save a ton of money by disbanding a lot of government.
(1) President sends draft of bill to House with yellow note on it, saying: "type this up and I will sign it".
(2) House types it up, spending a week or so with any member who wishes able to stand up and appear on CSpan.
(3) Bill is sent to the Senate.
(4) Senate proofreads it and any Senators wanting to stand up and get on CSpan get their chance.
(5) Bill is sent to president for signature.
(6) President's highly paid proofreaders make sure it is exactly the same as the draft sent over in point 1, above.
(7) President takes out pen, with an enthusiastic wave of his arm, pronounces the bill "clean", and signs it.
Sorry. That's not how it works. If it were, we could save a ton of money by disbanding a lot of government.
4
This is how I see it working (or not working):
Mitch McConnell promises not to shut down government.
Two months of Repubs walking around in circles and bumping into each other.
After two months they threaten to shut down government.
"You Lie!"
Mitch McConnell promises not to shut down government.
Two months of Repubs walking around in circles and bumping into each other.
After two months they threaten to shut down government.
"You Lie!"
3
What about suspending the pay check of all members of Congress and the executive branch until they settle this mess? And, I hope some of them--- or their relatives-- need the help of the Coast Guard while they are debating this.
3
According to the article, the Coast Guard is "deemed essential".
minh z wrote in this comments section: "This President has made it clear to me that the timing and his actions regarding immigration are completely motivated by political gain, and are NOT in the best interests of the US or it's citizens. It might be ugly but I support calling his bluff and close the DHS down."
YOU CANNOT call this Obama's bluff! He spoke of his policy objectives at the SOTU, and it is solely the republicans who have made this predicament out of holding DHS funding hostage to their anti-immigration objectives. Come on, minh z, this one is the republicans. Democrats and Obama have called for a clean DHS funding bill. Clean!
YOU CANNOT call this Obama's bluff! He spoke of his policy objectives at the SOTU, and it is solely the republicans who have made this predicament out of holding DHS funding hostage to their anti-immigration objectives. Come on, minh z, this one is the republicans. Democrats and Obama have called for a clean DHS funding bill. Clean!
4
Say there was a total shutdown of all services, because the Republicans have done nothing about immigration reform in however many years. So now that Obama has done something by executive order, the Republicans want to shut down the very department that would prevent "illegals" from crossing the border.
What if there's a terrorism attack that could have been prevented during the shutdown? Is it OK if we blame the Republicans, PLEASE? After all, their last shutdown was virtual treason and they totally got away with it.
Maybe it's time for the Republicans to suffer the consequences of their actions. Maybe it's time for them to take responsibility instead of passing the buck around and around and around.
What if there's a terrorism attack that could have been prevented during the shutdown? Is it OK if we blame the Republicans, PLEASE? After all, their last shutdown was virtual treason and they totally got away with it.
Maybe it's time for the Republicans to suffer the consequences of their actions. Maybe it's time for them to take responsibility instead of passing the buck around and around and around.
3
It's pretty astonishing the way the Times misleads and slants. It isn't "the House speaker, John A. Boehner" who would cause this shutdown. It is the Democrats in the Senate who are filibustering, refusing to let the appropriation--already passed by the House--come for a vote in their chamber.
That's the cold, hard truth, not the lies the liberal media are pushing to try to twist the minds of the people who aren't following this too closely--many of them writing misleading information up and down this chain.
That's the cold, hard truth, not the lies the liberal media are pushing to try to twist the minds of the people who aren't following this too closely--many of them writing misleading information up and down this chain.
5
@Micoz--
After wading through the easy-to-decode right wing language in your comment about the "lies" told by "liberal media" and your upside down Alice-in-Wonderland view of who is actually causing this shutdown, it was easy for me to figure out that the Senate Democrats are filibustering because the House gutted the appropriation for opening the route for a sane immigration solution and the answer is: It's the GOP, stupid!
If Boehner were on the up and up, and if the GOP rank and file weren't so pitifully impressionable, they would know the "the cold hard truth" is that Boehner could have tied the gutting of the President's legal protections for a large number of undocumented immigrants to anything else besides funding the DHS. But nothing gets the base fired up like talk of immigration, especially when said immigrants are brown.
After wading through the easy-to-decode right wing language in your comment about the "lies" told by "liberal media" and your upside down Alice-in-Wonderland view of who is actually causing this shutdown, it was easy for me to figure out that the Senate Democrats are filibustering because the House gutted the appropriation for opening the route for a sane immigration solution and the answer is: It's the GOP, stupid!
If Boehner were on the up and up, and if the GOP rank and file weren't so pitifully impressionable, they would know the "the cold hard truth" is that Boehner could have tied the gutting of the President's legal protections for a large number of undocumented immigrants to anything else besides funding the DHS. But nothing gets the base fired up like talk of immigration, especially when said immigrants are brown.
1
The DHS will be responsible for managing Obama's immigration overreaches. The House does not want DHS carrying out these activities. Therefore, pulling the funding to do it is correct, and the DHS funding bill is precisely the place and time to do it. What the House is doing is no different than pulling the funding for a fighter that the Defense Dept. wants.
2
These congressional disciples of Grover Norquist his funders, and others intent on "reducing the size of government", or to use the Budget in an attempt to get their way on contentious issues, continue to weaken this nation in ways far more serious than any of us realize. I don't know many words more accurate than 'subversive' to describe their intent and methodology. They are seriously destructive of good government. The hard-working public servants of the nation who are repeatedly faced with job insecurity brought on by the fiscal irresponsibility displayed by the political right is a deeply sad commentary. These congresspersons betray their oaths-of-office big time. They also fail not only dedicated public servants who often risk their lives to provide response to storms and emergencies, fight forest fires, patrol our coasts to rescue fishermen and boaters from dangerous seas, guard our borders and provide airport security, the FBI and a host of federal marshals... to name but a few. Congress fails to fulfill the basic fundamentals of preface to the Constitution ("provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare). In short, they don't do their job--and others suffer. Absurd, irrational, subversive....all these and more?
3
Article 1 Section 8.4 of the U.S. Constitution.: "The Congress shall have power to...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization...."
Clearly, the ability to legalize undocumented immigrants does not reside with the executive branch, therefore the issuance of an executive order to legalize undocumented immigrants is against the constitution and not within the scope of the presidency.
I've been a progressive for all of my life and I support a path to legal residency for undocumented individuals that prove themselves as an asset to our society, however Obama made a move in opposition to the constitution and it must be reversed. No president should ever be allowed to issue executive orders that opposed the constitution.
Clearly, the ability to legalize undocumented immigrants does not reside with the executive branch, therefore the issuance of an executive order to legalize undocumented immigrants is against the constitution and not within the scope of the presidency.
I've been a progressive for all of my life and I support a path to legal residency for undocumented individuals that prove themselves as an asset to our society, however Obama made a move in opposition to the constitution and it must be reversed. No president should ever be allowed to issue executive orders that opposed the constitution.
3
The President is not "legalizing" anyone. He is making sensible priorities in law enforcement, which is not only legit but actually his job. We simply can't deport everybody-- not even if we were callous enough to want to. So it makes a whole lot of sense to concentrate on deporting criminals rather than Dreamers and parents of American-born children.
The President has also said, again and again, that Congress can and should make an immigration law if they don't like his priorities. Why don't they? Because Republicans feel they must alienate the maximum number of voters, and by holding Homeland Security hostage to immigration laws, they can piss off not only Latinos but everyone else also?
The President has also said, again and again, that Congress can and should make an immigration law if they don't like his priorities. Why don't they? Because Republicans feel they must alienate the maximum number of voters, and by holding Homeland Security hostage to immigration laws, they can piss off not only Latinos but everyone else also?
1
Obama's order removes the age limit from the Deferred Action Childhood Act (aka the Dreamer act), hence even adults that willfully entered the U.S. illegally will be eligible to apply for work permits. Even if a work permit does not equal citizenship, for all practical purposes it effectively legalizes undocumented individuals.
Essential personnel will remain on post but not paid - may result in some upset voters come election time ? Ps I realize adding "riders, amendments etc. " to Bills , funding measures etc. is part of the "system" , but gosh sometimes I wish our elected leaders would vote on the individual merits and separate items added on for partisan "political" reasons. Ok a majority of republicans leadership don't like the "immigration" , executive action of the president. IMHO if Congress doesn't like "executive action" latitude, then discuss ways to reign this in for all future presidents republican or democrat --- oh yea while they are at it how about term limits and campaign funding regulations to "level the playing field" for candidates seeking office and not wishing and/or able to tap into "special interest" groups.
1
If the Republicans want to shut it down, so be it - but they better go thru with a shut down that has consequence, not some whimpy move of offering back pay to government employees.
1
If this all ends up defunding DHS, we're all better off for it. Huge waste of cash.
1
If the reason for the shut down is Republicans think Obana's action are unconstitutional, why don't they add it to the other claims they have in their lawsuit against him? Let a judge decide what is constitutional, not a congressman!
3
Keep in mind, the House can defund this on the basis of it being a terrible idea that they do not wish to see funded, too, you know.
Evidently, Republicans hold government employees in such contempt that they think nothing of turning government employment into some kind of indentured servitude, requiring their fellow American citizens to work without paychecks so long as they need to cut themselves some slack to pander to their base. Considering their position on raising the minimum wage to regain ground lost to inflation and restore some of the dignity of work, their contempt for employees, for people working for others for a living, seems general. I suppose workers, just like the President, don't love America as they do.
4
We surely have become the laughing stock of the civilized world: The Republican-led Congress disgraces itself again by holding up funding for an ostensibly vital security agency in order to rein in a Democrat President from doing what his Republican predecessor did without a whisper of dissent; a Presidential contender in a BBC interview dissembles about his disbelief in evolution; and, worst, we have allowed unrestricted flows of money into electoral politics, much of it from anonymous sources, that have distorted and corrupted our electoral system and rigged the tax code against the poor and middle class.
It would seem that the grand experiment begun in Boston Harbor 243 years ago has run its course. We again have taxation without anything remotely resembling representation. Maybe it’s time to start over.
It would seem that the grand experiment begun in Boston Harbor 243 years ago has run its course. We again have taxation without anything remotely resembling representation. Maybe it’s time to start over.
5
If only we could fire everyone in the Congress.
4
If the enemy were to choose to do something dramatic when DHS is shut down, it is hard to fathom the implications for the Republican Party and, for that matter Congress. They would have utterly failed at their most basic responsibility to the people.
4
Just another reason to vote everyone out of congress for the next election. No one could be any worse than what we have currently. Pathetic excuse for governance. Boehner should be ashamed of playing politics with America's security. The GOP has had how many years to deal with immigration and done absolutely ZERO to solve the problem. All Obama did was ACT on it - it may not be what the republicans want but where's their plan? and more importantly, why attach it to something that has nothing to do with immigration?
3
The reason some people might not notice a difference after the Homeland Security shutdown is because 90% of the employees will still be working. However, they will be working without pay. In America. In 2015. All of the Border Patrol and Coast Guard employees and on and on will now be working without a paycheck to feed and house their families.
3
All this is just scare-mongering by the democrats. Read the blasted bill, people: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/240/text
NOTHING is going unfunded except Obama's over-reaching immigration policy. Many departments are getting ADDITIONAL funding. If DHS shuts down, it's the dems doing it to make a political point and you all buy into it.
http://appropriations.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=381268
NOTHING is going unfunded except Obama's over-reaching immigration policy. Many departments are getting ADDITIONAL funding. If DHS shuts down, it's the dems doing it to make a political point and you all buy into it.
http://appropriations.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=381268
4
It's so much easier to get worked up about what you hear, what you think is in the bill, than to actually read it.
I don't think you actually expected anyone to read those links did you?
I took a couple minutes and glanced over them. The misinformation you're trying to offer up was pretty good. However, the appropriations draft was issued last May. That's before Mr. Obama's executive action. There were six amendments added January 14 all stating in someway or another their displeasure with Mr. Obama and banning funding for his immigration action.
Nice try buddy, but there is no fear mongering in this article. Only blatant falsehoods on your part.
I took a couple minutes and glanced over them. The misinformation you're trying to offer up was pretty good. However, the appropriations draft was issued last May. That's before Mr. Obama's executive action. There were six amendments added January 14 all stating in someway or another their displeasure with Mr. Obama and banning funding for his immigration action.
Nice try buddy, but there is no fear mongering in this article. Only blatant falsehoods on your part.
2
I've read all these amendments and find nothing wrong with any of them. Most are just clarifications or explicit instruction. Obviously these menders are very aware of how government finds loop-holes to inject or enact their "agendas".
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/240/amendments
H.Amdt.7 — Amendment to provide that no funds may be used to consider NEW, RENEWAL or PREVIOUSLY DENIED DACA applications.
H.Amdt.6 — Amendment to prevent any funds from whatever source to be used to carry-out (1) the Executive actions announced on November 20, 2014 to grant deferred action to certain unlawful aliens and for other purposes, and (2) four of the `Morton Memos' on prosecutorial discretion and immigration enforcement priorities issued in 2011 and 2012 that effectively prevent certain classes of unlawful aliens from being removed from the country. 2) Declare that no funds may be used to carry-out any substantially similar policies to those defunded. 3) Declare that the policies defunded and any substantially similar policies have no statutory or constitutional basis and therefore no legal effect. 4) Provide that no funds may be used to grant any Federal benefit to any alien as a result of the policies defunded.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/240/amendments
H.Amdt.7 — Amendment to provide that no funds may be used to consider NEW, RENEWAL or PREVIOUSLY DENIED DACA applications.
H.Amdt.6 — Amendment to prevent any funds from whatever source to be used to carry-out (1) the Executive actions announced on November 20, 2014 to grant deferred action to certain unlawful aliens and for other purposes, and (2) four of the `Morton Memos' on prosecutorial discretion and immigration enforcement priorities issued in 2011 and 2012 that effectively prevent certain classes of unlawful aliens from being removed from the country. 2) Declare that no funds may be used to carry-out any substantially similar policies to those defunded. 3) Declare that the policies defunded and any substantially similar policies have no statutory or constitutional basis and therefore no legal effect. 4) Provide that no funds may be used to grant any Federal benefit to any alien as a result of the policies defunded.
In France we have strikes. In the US you have ... Republicans?
9
@M. Balick
Touché!
Touché!
3
We are all horrified that another government shutdown is coming. Yet this is what we voted for in November. Turned over the Senate to these people, gave them a larger majority in the House and for good measure gave them control of the majority of state houses. We get what we voted for and deserve, lousy, dysfunctional government.
5
Republicans in the House are know-nothing, do-nothing cowards who refuse to work, despite their undeserved $175,000 taxpayer-subisidzed salaries with benefits. Last year, they calendared approximately 1/3 of the year "in session," and this year looks no better.
Since the new Congress began, they have voted to repeal the ACA, again, to outlaw abortion, again, (later backing down), to approve the Keystone Pipeline that will cede American land and air and water to a foreign energy company, without contributing to domestic energy supplies or very many permanent American jobs.
They have now voted to defund the President's executive order on "Dreamers" ... because Republicans have no ideas to contribute on the question of immigration. All they needed to do was to put a real bill out there, but it is just so much easier to sit on their hyperbolic buns than to produce any actual work.
They get elected by gerrymandering and disenfranchising, even as they shout about American "exceptionalism."
And now, for our continued consternation, the chicken hawks screed on about national security and ISIS and about a President they suggest is weak on defense, as they threaten the Department of Homeland Security at a time of heightened world terrorist concerns.
Ingenious.
Since the new Congress began, they have voted to repeal the ACA, again, to outlaw abortion, again, (later backing down), to approve the Keystone Pipeline that will cede American land and air and water to a foreign energy company, without contributing to domestic energy supplies or very many permanent American jobs.
They have now voted to defund the President's executive order on "Dreamers" ... because Republicans have no ideas to contribute on the question of immigration. All they needed to do was to put a real bill out there, but it is just so much easier to sit on their hyperbolic buns than to produce any actual work.
They get elected by gerrymandering and disenfranchising, even as they shout about American "exceptionalism."
And now, for our continued consternation, the chicken hawks screed on about national security and ISIS and about a President they suggest is weak on defense, as they threaten the Department of Homeland Security at a time of heightened world terrorist concerns.
Ingenious.
6
Here we go again, another year, another shutdown showdown.
Pass clean bills - stop politicking and do your jobs - but then, we've had the equivalent of a shutdown in Congress for years - only they keep getting paid.
How about this: if the government shuts down because of Congressional intransigence, then Congress doesn't get paid either. And while we're on the "beat the Congress" line - how about forcing all members to live at minimum wage for 6 months - no perks, no using savings or kickbacks. Wonder how quickly they'd pass an increase?
Pass clean bills - stop politicking and do your jobs - but then, we've had the equivalent of a shutdown in Congress for years - only they keep getting paid.
How about this: if the government shuts down because of Congressional intransigence, then Congress doesn't get paid either. And while we're on the "beat the Congress" line - how about forcing all members to live at minimum wage for 6 months - no perks, no using savings or kickbacks. Wonder how quickly they'd pass an increase?
8
How soon people forget. In 1986, congress passed, and President Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), Public Law 99-603, which, among other things, extended temporary legal status to those who entered illegally prior to January 1, 1982 or overstayed their visas on legal entry as of that date, and had not been convicted of a crime. So there is precedent for the scope of President Obama's executive order as legislated by Congress.
Now to the question of whether there is precedent for an executive order of this nature. First of all, President Obama did not issue an executive order. He did issue an executive memorandum. Since the difference is somewhat technical, we’ll consider them the same for sake of argument. In 1990, President Bush issued an executive action, named the Family Fairness Program, which deferred deportation for immediate family members (children and spouses) of people legalized by the IRCA. So, yes, there is precedent for executive action of this nature.
So the question is, have the Republicans forgotten their own actions (unlikely, since elephants never forget … unless they’re called in front of an investigative committee!), or are they simply playing games with the American people for their own ends. I’m strongly believe it’s the latter.
Now to the question of whether there is precedent for an executive order of this nature. First of all, President Obama did not issue an executive order. He did issue an executive memorandum. Since the difference is somewhat technical, we’ll consider them the same for sake of argument. In 1990, President Bush issued an executive action, named the Family Fairness Program, which deferred deportation for immediate family members (children and spouses) of people legalized by the IRCA. So, yes, there is precedent for executive action of this nature.
So the question is, have the Republicans forgotten their own actions (unlikely, since elephants never forget … unless they’re called in front of an investigative committee!), or are they simply playing games with the American people for their own ends. I’m strongly believe it’s the latter.
25
Reagan and Bush created the current mess but that does not mean we must allow the President, like those before him for decades, to ignore, allow or reward illegal immigration. The costs to ordinary Americans are now just too burdensome. Enough is enough. However we got here, the line literally needs to be drawn.
Bonus: less Homeland Security, maybe decent citizens could actually get some civil liberties back instead of catering to rampant law breakers.
Bonus: less Homeland Security, maybe decent citizens could actually get some civil liberties back instead of catering to rampant law breakers.
Thanks this is a helpful and brief summary. Its clear that whatever policy Republicans and Democrats have followed has failed miserably. Or more to the point - the policy hasn't failed as much as our elected leadership.
1
Democrats that did not vote should be ashamed. There is absolutely no excuse for not voting - not even when you are jaded or bored with politics. It is the fault of these democrats that we are living in the horrible mess confronting Obama and all the citizens of the US of America.
If my family did not vote, I would disown them. That is how I was brought up - if you want to live in this country and keep it as a caring country, you vote. I hope that the people that did not vote do not share their comments on this page because they do not have that right.
If my family did not vote, I would disown them. That is how I was brought up - if you want to live in this country and keep it as a caring country, you vote. I hope that the people that did not vote do not share their comments on this page because they do not have that right.
2
If one person is harmed because of a shutdown, whether it's a 10 % or 99% shutdown, Boehner should be held personally liable, sued and removed from Congress.
5
Does this mean I won't have to removes my shoes, socks and underwear at the airport. I would be all for shutting HS down permanently and bolstering local law enforcement and the FBI.
1
At the time Rudy is questioning the President's patriotism, the Republican party wants to shut down the federal government and defund Homeland Security. And the sad thing is they don't see the hypocrisy of that.
4
So, Rep. Mulvaney and the Heritage foundation think defunding the Dept. of Homeland Security is "probably worth it to defend the Constitution"-- just to score political points-- with no thought for the thousands of employees that will be going without paychecks. I guess they think these employees are also trust-fund kids, have rolls of cash buried in coffee cans or, hey, if they are true Patriots, they can just tighten their belts for a while, clip more food coupons.
Perhaps Rep. Mulvaney, an elected official who happens to be on the Government payroll, could set an example and forfeit his check. Oh, I forgot, he's got the financial backing of the Heritage Foundation to make sure he meets his mortgage payment, pays his electric bill and any other personal expenses that he just might find himself a little bit short. No worries for him. None. Maybe one of his supporters will even bring over a tuna casserole and they can enjoy it on his plastic Constitution place mats.
Perhaps Rep. Mulvaney, an elected official who happens to be on the Government payroll, could set an example and forfeit his check. Oh, I forgot, he's got the financial backing of the Heritage Foundation to make sure he meets his mortgage payment, pays his electric bill and any other personal expenses that he just might find himself a little bit short. No worries for him. None. Maybe one of his supporters will even bring over a tuna casserole and they can enjoy it on his plastic Constitution place mats.
3
Fascinating...The Republican-controlled congress would willingly cut their nose to spite their face, forgetting that in the final analysis, neither nose or face comes out the winner!
4
How does a person take out a big hammer and wack'a'mole their heads. By not funding Homeland Security that's how. This is funny stuff and the Republican Party will take a brutal beating over this, (and the longer it takes), simply means a new set of Congressional leadership will have to emerge to overcome the loss of judgement. Congress, in the past, have lost their heads to irrational ideology and the outcome is aways the same: oblitered leadership. Obama and Clinton must think and feel that 2016 cannot come soon enough for the sake of institutional integrity and functional governmental process. Republicans are ideologues that have lost sight of simple politics and public opinion.
6
Shut em down. These employees are making way too money for doing the same jobs as private sector employees. Most of their work is not needed and too costly for our nation.
Representative Thomas Massie, Republican of Kentucky, said, “It’s not clear what the impact is because there are a lot of things that are supposedly funded anyway,” he said, “so the impact may be smaller than we think.”
Why do southern congressmen always want people to work without paying them?
Why do southern congressmen always want people to work without paying them?
7
Sounds like 'We have to pass it to see what's in it"
Republicans, out!
10
I'm just wondering how our Congress expects us to safely host Bibi Netanyahu for his upcoming speech without DHS working on all cylinders. Seems like a job you wouldn't want the agency to handle with one hand tied behind their backs.
Also, how does defunding DHS, the department that handles border security, help us in the struggle against illegal immigration? Seems rather counter productive to thinking people.
Once again Congressional Republican maneuvering is more about being a thorn in the side of the president than common sense.
Also, how does defunding DHS, the department that handles border security, help us in the struggle against illegal immigration? Seems rather counter productive to thinking people.
Once again Congressional Republican maneuvering is more about being a thorn in the side of the president than common sense.
10
@Jay NYC
Perhaps someone needs to send John Boehner and the rest of the GOP leadership a copy of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf?"
Perhaps someone needs to send John Boehner and the rest of the GOP leadership a copy of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf?"
1
The Rs lost on the immigration policy fight. They don't have the votes to stop the president. Sound familiar? So instead they close all or part of government. Sound familiar? The public fears and hates the tactic. Sound familiar? The Republican lose the presidential election because people think Republicans are scary. Sound familiar?
12
Keep rewarding Republicans for sabotaging governance - shut down the government, vote against all jobs bills, oppose anything and everything President Obama suggests even if it their own idea, deny millions of people health care, destroy the voting rights law thereby denying millions of people the right to vote (the very cornerstone of democracy), deny climate change and now refuse to fund the department of homeland security even in the face of serious threats to the homeland. One of these America will pay a huge price for Republican stupidity. May be then this nonsense will stop if it will.
11
What does it take around here to defund the Congresspeople who allow this nonsense to occur? If Homeland Security doesn't get paid, Congress and their staff don't get paid. This should be in the Constitution.
12
I'm glad the GOP House is full of constitutional experts willing to shut down Homeland Security to protect the Constitution. But I always thought it was the role of the SCOTUS to rule on constitutional questions between the Executive and Congress, rather than a band of hair-on-fire ideologues.
Its going to be a few weeks of chaos once more with nothing changed at the end, only this time the stakes are higher. Don't worry about that Mall of America thing.
Its going to be a few weeks of chaos once more with nothing changed at the end, only this time the stakes are higher. Don't worry about that Mall of America thing.
10
O Canada, your national anthem is superior to ours, and your parliamentary democracy seems to work better than the American brand, too. Somebody has to stop the madness, so please, send a small invasion force to DC, stage a coup, and impose parliamentary law.
9
The Republicans used to attack Democrats and this president for being soft on terrorism. They've now taken aim at five million terrorist children residing in the US who are as American as the rest of us? Republicans should either take this to court or win the White House. But holding our security agency responsible is both irresponsible and facilitates terrorism.
Oh yes, and in the next elections when the Republicans and Jeb Bush are soft peddling their position on immigration to court the Hispanic vote and frontlining his Mexican wife just remember them shutting down HLS to rid the country of kids.
Oh yes, and in the next elections when the Republicans and Jeb Bush are soft peddling their position on immigration to court the Hispanic vote and frontlining his Mexican wife just remember them shutting down HLS to rid the country of kids.
9
Remember Democratic bills filibustered by republicans and reported as Democrats fail to pass bill, let's see how republican failure to pass DHS funding is reported. Bet its Dems Filibuster DHS funding.
7
The president forced through an unconstitutional executive order on immigration despite losing the midterm elections. Then the Senate Democrats block passage of the DHS spending bill to protect the president from the legislative consequence of the election. In this case it is pretty easy to see that the Democrats are the obstructionists.
Article One Section 8 Clause 4 of the Constitution delegates the power to make laws of naturalization to the legislative branch of government; it does not delegate this power to the executive branch of government, even during periods when the president does not have control of Congress. Therefore, an executive action which naturalizes millions of illegal immigrants without Congressional authorization is unconstitutional, no matter what kind of outrageous sophistry Obama’s lawyers use to obfuscate the issue.
Article One Section 8 Clause 4 of the Constitution delegates the power to make laws of naturalization to the legislative branch of government; it does not delegate this power to the executive branch of government, even during periods when the president does not have control of Congress. Therefore, an executive action which naturalizes millions of illegal immigrants without Congressional authorization is unconstitutional, no matter what kind of outrageous sophistry Obama’s lawyers use to obfuscate the issue.
5
@Keat --
You sure have your knickers in a knot over the President's Executive Actions on Immigration -- but you don't sound as though you've actually read the language on the website of the Department of Homeland Security, section on U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
Try it. You'll like it. Especially because it doesn't say anything about an "executive action which naturalizes millions of illegal immigrants". Mostly it's about cleaning up a very tangled mess involving millions of undocumented immigrants and opening a path to naturalization that, for most, would take years and years.
You sure have your knickers in a knot over the President's Executive Actions on Immigration -- but you don't sound as though you've actually read the language on the website of the Department of Homeland Security, section on U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
Try it. You'll like it. Especially because it doesn't say anything about an "executive action which naturalizes millions of illegal immigrants". Mostly it's about cleaning up a very tangled mess involving millions of undocumented immigrants and opening a path to naturalization that, for most, would take years and years.
1
Creating a "path to naturalization" is one of the enumerated powers of Congress. Obama' executive order usurps this power and represents an unprecedented preemption of the democratic process. Previous executive orders were either much smaller in scope or were enacted after Congress passed a law.
You don't sound as though you give a darn about separation of powers. Perhaps you should spend some time rereading the U.S. Constitution and the founding fathers. Try it; you may not like it, but it is still the highest American law.
You don't sound as though you give a darn about separation of powers. Perhaps you should spend some time rereading the U.S. Constitution and the founding fathers. Try it; you may not like it, but it is still the highest American law.
This is the new "responsible" Republican majority's governing style? What a joke. I hope that nothing happens because of this crass purely political ploy, and voters will remember at the next election that these people are a bunch of spoiled children that are willing to play chicken with and hold hostage basic public safety.
14
By all means shut down DHS -- not temporarily, as in the current budget kabuki, but for good. This useless, bloated, poorly managed, morale-crushing bureaucracy run amok arguably is a greater threat to our national security than ISIS will ever be. Free the Coast Guard!
7
From the majority of the comments it is clear most people do not understand how our government works. Congress has just as much power as the administration. Congress has the power of the purse. If the president wants something he'd better learn to cooperate or stuff like this will happen. It's how our system of government is supposed to work.
3
A shut down is a temper tantrum, not a negotiation.
2
I voted for Obama twice. One of my big disappointments in his administration is how long it took him to realize there is NOTHING he could do to cooperate with the Republicans. Complete capitulation is the only "cooperation" the GOP will recognize. Tea partiers campaigned on their unwillingness to compromise. So let's say for the sake of argument an executive order wasn't the right thing to do. What do you suggest, given that Congress refused to pass legislation concerning immigration and has as their stated mission thwarting the president in any way possible?
3
And vice versa.
The GOP has been hand wringing for a while over how to appeal to the increasing block of Hispanic voters. This is certainly no way to do it.
9
The Republican dominated House passed a DHS funding bill that defunded Obama's amnesties. Perfectly appropriate. House passes funding bills. DHS is to administer Obama's amnesties. House doesn't want this done. So, just as the House might pull the funds for a fighter the Department of Defense wanted, they cut the funding that DHS would use to implement Obama's overreach/policy mistakes.
The bill went to the Senate, where Republicans voted repeatedly to advance the bill and begin discussing/modifying it. The Democrats blocked any movement.
So, which party is the obstructionist?
The House is under no obligation to just pass bills that the president or the Democrats dictate. They aren't some word processor for the White House.
The bill went to the Senate, where Republicans voted repeatedly to advance the bill and begin discussing/modifying it. The Democrats blocked any movement.
So, which party is the obstructionist?
The House is under no obligation to just pass bills that the president or the Democrats dictate. They aren't some word processor for the White House.
3
We have no right to complain. It is self-inflicted. Just desserts!
5
Dept of Homeland security took up functions performed by other departments at the time. It found its origins because G W Bush wanted to find a reason why he had missed the terrorists operating under his nose. Everyone knows it. But it is a way to extract "contracts" and other financial goodies for the insiders. Too bad Congress does not have the sense or courage or whatever to shut it down. Can't do much about that.
5
One of the comments notes that although Republicans have funded DHS, it did not support the President's "usurpation" on immigration. The same "usurpation" that Reagan and Bush used, I suppose. Further, there was a perfectly fine and bipartisan immigration bill that came out of the Senate last term .... but Boehner did not allow a vote on it, fearing a Tea Party revolt. This is government being held hostage by radical nativist Tea Party people.
12
If the GOP shuts down DHS and there is a terrorist attack, it will be on their heads, as it should be. They will have earned that distinction, infamous as it would be. I obviously hope we never have such an attack, but not for the sake of the highly dysfunctional GOP, but for the sake of our nation and upstanding Americans.
9
Republicans are willing to shut down DHS over immigration. They say the President's Executive Order is unconstitutional however not once would they discuss any reforms on immigration prior to the President issuing it. I'm not surprised in the least.
Those of you who voted for them in the midterms hope your happy.
Those of you who voted for them in the midterms hope your happy.
14
If they want to challenge Obama they should take him to court, which they have already done. Yeah, they really are THAT crazy.
5
Will the guards around the Capitol building be the first to be sent home? Of course not!
8
Maybe the good that will come out of this is enough people will come to the polls in 2016 and vote the Republicans out of office.
8
Furlough the GOP and send them all home, as they are all non-essential.
15
GOP Congress 2015 AKA ..Mistakes Were Made Dream Team.
7
Much like the last shutdown, these idiots in congress will continue to receive their own paychecks while low paid employees who actually do work will go without.
10
So despite or in spite of all the rhetoric spewing from the mouths of Republican politicians about national security, it isn't as important as skewering President Obama yet again. It would seem the "Party of Moral Rectitude" isn't so moral after all.
18
Who was the Republican mastermind who figured out that sabotaging -- and starving -- the Homeland Security department would be political gold for Republicans? Wild guess: the same guy/gal who coined "One and done!"
8
I think I'm actually going to miss taking off my shoes, emptying my pockets and discarding small toiletry items when I fly.
2
Look. They have to shut down something. How else will their constituents know the Repubs are doing something?
9
Has anyone asked these Republican clowns what they intend to do with the eleven million plus illegals already in the country. They have been unable to pass a sensible bill because of their infantile obsession with opposing everything Mr Obama does. They should be despised by every American for disrespecting the Presidency and their own Nation.
12
Actually, we did pass immigration reform in - I believe - 1986. Perhaps the government could adhere to the law, as the rest of us are generally expected to do.
4
1986 was 29 years ago, and you didn't answer my question. What will you do with the 11 million?
Further, every Constitutional expert I have seen quoted has said that Mr Obama's actions are quite legal. One way or another the current Congressional inaction is causing untold grief. Are you going to send someone back to Mexico, who came to the U.S. as a child and knows nothing else? What about the crime and the predicament of those open to blackmail? Get real.
Further, every Constitutional expert I have seen quoted has said that Mr Obama's actions are quite legal. One way or another the current Congressional inaction is causing untold grief. Are you going to send someone back to Mexico, who came to the U.S. as a child and knows nothing else? What about the crime and the predicament of those open to blackmail? Get real.
1
Tough to decide if it's obstinacy or impetuousness. With all those lawyers on hand, they can't find legislative and/or judicial avenues to assert themselves against the president without appearing to be imbeciles? This is said without needing to take sides on the specific bandaid immigration solutions.
7
Let's keep funding for Homeland Security intact and furlough the Congress, sans their paychecks. medical coverage and the myriad other perks they leech off the American taxpayer.
14
The Republican Party is an absolute failure. It is time to say it like it is. They are the most counter-productive, inept, short-sighted and uneducated people in government. To shut down Homeland Security for the immature whiners in the House is a catastrophic strategy, if it can be called strategy. These so-called politicians live in a fantasy, and their behavior is disgusting.
13
RTFA. Republicans in the House passed a bill to fund DHS, Democrats in the Senate are preventing it from moving because it contains language to prevent funds from being spent on Obama's amnesty program for illegal immigrants. Given that a federal court has recently declared that program unconstitutional, it seems prudent not to fund it.
More to the point, if there is a failure here, it is not on the Republican side.
More to the point, if there is a failure here, it is not on the Republican side.
2
Given that a federal court has recently declared the President's program unconstitutional, it's completely imprudent of the Republicans to fail to pass a clean bill funding DHS. It's reckless to base the shutdown of DHS to the defunding of a program that's going nowhere on its own merits.
Even the Republicans admit the President's orders are unconstitutional; if they really believed their own spoutings, there would be no need for them to try to defund the immigration program.
Even the Republicans admit the President's orders are unconstitutional; if they really believed their own spoutings, there would be no need for them to try to defund the immigration program.
3
Lest any in the electorate not already know whatever Capitol Hill really cares about. Hint: it's safety last.
5
But they all have little lapel flags proving that they are more patriotic than anyone else and that they love their country more than the rest of us do.
9
"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." Samuel Johnson
9
The foot soldiers in war zones now and past, should feel sick at the lack of commitment by our elected officials. Getting these issues right or wrong can only win or loose political capital, not lives. It is long since time for congress to get their act together, put the speeches down, prove you are capable of caring.
4
Funny how quickly the bullies become crybabies when their Heritage Foundation fantasies encounter stubborn reality. This should be hung around Mitch McConnell's neck, if there wasn't enough hanging there already.
11
Whoever would do this must not love their country. Right Rudy?
17
Being a federal employee has got to be the only job where you're expected to work without payment. Unbelievable.
8
"The rest, deemed essential, would be expected to continue working, but without receiving their regular biweekly paychecks."
What kind of crock is that? Many of these workers are not highly paid and probably living paycheck to paycheck.
What kind of crock is that? Many of these workers are not highly paid and probably living paycheck to paycheck.
11
Love how House Republicans, who last year couldn't stop saying that the Senate Democrats "needs to pass a clean bill" for every piece of stalled legislation now are the recipients of Democrats saying the same. Delicious irony.
17
Good. The Homeland Security Dept. is a front for our government to drum up fears of outsiders--while they systematically, and by any means possible conduct surveillance on all citizens. Thanks to Homeland Security, there are dossiers on where every person drives, every phone call they make, every letter they send or receive via the postal service, and a thousand other things I'm sure I don't know about. Defund them. Watch Citizen Four --the Academy Award -winning documentary.
9
This reminds me of sequestration -- the threat that's not supposed to actually ever be carried out, because it's such a bad idea. I think we have to stop assuming, when deciding what legislative measures and structures and strategies to support, that Congress will use sound judgment and act reasonably.
4
I think Congress needs to be de-funded. Permanently.
10
Obama holds all the cards. He will shoot the hostage (homeland security) if he doesn't get funding for his unconstitutional amnesty.
6
There is no 'funding' for his 'amnesty' nor is there an 'amnesty.' Under the budget passed by the Congress, there is only enough enforcement money to potentially deport (at most) about 500,000 illegal aliens. Obama made the *shocking* decision to direct immigration to focus on deporting the ones who are criminals, and to not focus on deporting those who are working. There is no funding involved, just a focus on using the limited resources to getting rid of the undesirables.
3
A fake shutdown of a fake department that was created in response to a fake threat to our fake homeland.
Is this politics or the Oscars?
Don't bother answering, it's a rhetorical question...
Is this politics or the Oscars?
Don't bother answering, it's a rhetorical question...
7
Representative Mick Mulvaney thinks that shutting down DHS is defending the Constitution. Fact is, though, that there has been no attack on the Constitution to defend against.
Representative Thomas Massie is unclear on the impact of shutting down DHS. Those facts are clearly detailed in this article, let alone the contested DHS budget.
When a person is unaware of facts, that person is said to be ignorant. Ignorance is rampant among House Republicans, and it is driving John Boehner to engage in an embarassingly ignorant power struggle with the highly informed Constitutional scholar, Barack Obama.
Boehner's ignorantly pointless tactics have included repealing the ACA; suing the President for postponing the employer mandate; inviting Bibi Netanyahu to speak to Congress without the customary approval of the White House; refusing to let a Senate-passed, bipartisan immigration bill, which would have prevented the executive order, come to a vote in the House; and now, shutting down DHS, which has zero effect on Citizenship and Immigration Services or the hated executive order.
Informed, intelligent, thinking voters, take notice. You are witnessing the damage that can occur when ignorance rules. Do not let that happen in 2016.
Representative Thomas Massie is unclear on the impact of shutting down DHS. Those facts are clearly detailed in this article, let alone the contested DHS budget.
When a person is unaware of facts, that person is said to be ignorant. Ignorance is rampant among House Republicans, and it is driving John Boehner to engage in an embarassingly ignorant power struggle with the highly informed Constitutional scholar, Barack Obama.
Boehner's ignorantly pointless tactics have included repealing the ACA; suing the President for postponing the employer mandate; inviting Bibi Netanyahu to speak to Congress without the customary approval of the White House; refusing to let a Senate-passed, bipartisan immigration bill, which would have prevented the executive order, come to a vote in the House; and now, shutting down DHS, which has zero effect on Citizenship and Immigration Services or the hated executive order.
Informed, intelligent, thinking voters, take notice. You are witnessing the damage that can occur when ignorance rules. Do not let that happen in 2016.
10
The point about Mullvaney jumped out at me too. I thought it was the court's job to interpret the Constitution. Apparently Mr. Mulvaney missed that class in high school or in his orientation to be a representative. He has taken the job on himself.
2
@entity.z
"Informed, intelligent, thinking voters, take notice"
If we had truly informed, intelligent, thinking voters, we would not have a Republican majority in the Congress -- or the Republicans would not be the uninformed, unthinking, dumbed down crowd they are.
Said it before, I'll say it again. If they're not The Party of Stupid, then who is?
"Informed, intelligent, thinking voters, take notice"
If we had truly informed, intelligent, thinking voters, we would not have a Republican majority in the Congress -- or the Republicans would not be the uninformed, unthinking, dumbed down crowd they are.
Said it before, I'll say it again. If they're not The Party of Stupid, then who is?
1
In times past when the Congress wanted to make a point about a Presidential policy with which it disagreed, the Senate and House would create, debate and vote to pass a resolution. A well-debated resolution may not have the force of law, but it provides to the President a clearly-voiced and reasoned disagreement the majority of the House and Senate has with the President.
A resolution would seem to be the perfect vehicle for the Republican-led Congress to voice it’s disagreements with the President and his new immigration policies. If the Congress wants the respect of the President, the Congressional opposition and the citizens of this country, a reasoned and public debate on an offered Congressional resolution would seem to be the way to go. Instead, the Republican-led Congress has resorted to strong-arm tactics that do nothing to change Presidential policies … in fact, would appear to make President Obama more resolute to stay the course.
Why the strong-arm tactics that resemble the behavior of a gang that a legislative body? The only payoff to this strategy for Congressional Republicans seems to be to continue to garner the support of their most extreme elements. But each time they play the shut-down game, the more they’re seen as the ones who value anarchy over order, irrationality over reason. It may be that they’re trapped in a cycle that they cannot break ... and that does not bode well for anyone.
A resolution would seem to be the perfect vehicle for the Republican-led Congress to voice it’s disagreements with the President and his new immigration policies. If the Congress wants the respect of the President, the Congressional opposition and the citizens of this country, a reasoned and public debate on an offered Congressional resolution would seem to be the way to go. Instead, the Republican-led Congress has resorted to strong-arm tactics that do nothing to change Presidential policies … in fact, would appear to make President Obama more resolute to stay the course.
Why the strong-arm tactics that resemble the behavior of a gang that a legislative body? The only payoff to this strategy for Congressional Republicans seems to be to continue to garner the support of their most extreme elements. But each time they play the shut-down game, the more they’re seen as the ones who value anarchy over order, irrationality over reason. It may be that they’re trapped in a cycle that they cannot break ... and that does not bode well for anyone.
10
Why should Congress need to pass a resolution to ask the President to obey the laws that prior Congresses have passed? Should this be necessary for EVERY law on the books?
1
Incredible. If Homeland security actually does something existing agencies can not do, then it is irresponsible of the Republicans to use it as a policy/budget hostage. However, whether the voters remember this hairbrained tactic and remind the Republicans of it at elecion time remains to be seen. Incredible that we survive withn elected officials whom really do not care aboutnhaving a working and effective government.
8
The republicans were rewarded with deeper control of the House and numerical majority in the Senate for their last shut down antics. There is no reason for them to fear an apathetic public and energized radical base. It has been stated many times the goal of the right wing is to reduce the Federal Government to the smallest entity possible, regardless of the means by which it is done or who gets hurt.
6
DHS handles immigration. The funding restrictions under dispute are highly relevant to a bill funding DHS.
not regardless of whom is hurt-because this gov size is hurting us all and it's not even working-been to or dealt with ANY gov agency lately?
1
Go ahead and shut down the ENTIRE TSA, please! Furlough every last person from the TSA chief to the newest employee, so we can all see that the world doesn't end without these people.
It would also be a nice start toward re-gaining some of our constitutional rights.
It would also be a nice start toward re-gaining some of our constitutional rights.
8
Are you old enough to remember the 60s and 70s when airplanes were hijacked and taken to (among other places) Cuba about once a month? Do you recall 9/11? Do you seriously think if we eliminate TSA that Al Quada and ISIS won't repeat 9/11?
3
@DWR: I am old enough to remember the 1960's quite well, and I lived though 9/11 in NYC, so don't question my bona fides. I've also experienced enough of the TSA's absurd, mindless, thuggish behavior to make me stop flying permanently.
If the TSA, as currently constituted, is what stands between us and terrorism, we're already doomed. If you think the TSA is effective, you are living in cloud-cuckoo land. 9/11 could have been prevented in a number of ways - most easily with hardened cockpit doors - but nobody bothered to take that step. Now we're stuck with the massive over-reaction that is the TSA.
While the TSA is busy harassing ordinary Americans, the loading of baggage and cargo onto planes goes largely unsupervised - which is a HUGE security hole. No one bothers to address that, as if it were a side-issue and not a serious security concern.
We are also not willing to profile passengers who would likely represent a genuine security risk. Instead, the TSA aggravates everyone from newborns to the elderly and disabled in wheelchairs.
So, I repeat: I am in favor of shutting down the entire TSA because then we will see how useless it is.
If the TSA, as currently constituted, is what stands between us and terrorism, we're already doomed. If you think the TSA is effective, you are living in cloud-cuckoo land. 9/11 could have been prevented in a number of ways - most easily with hardened cockpit doors - but nobody bothered to take that step. Now we're stuck with the massive over-reaction that is the TSA.
While the TSA is busy harassing ordinary Americans, the loading of baggage and cargo onto planes goes largely unsupervised - which is a HUGE security hole. No one bothers to address that, as if it were a side-issue and not a serious security concern.
We are also not willing to profile passengers who would likely represent a genuine security risk. Instead, the TSA aggravates everyone from newborns to the elderly and disabled in wheelchairs.
So, I repeat: I am in favor of shutting down the entire TSA because then we will see how useless it is.
1
Republicans didn't seem to think there was any price to pay for their government shutdown which actually cost taxpayers $24 billion and harmed tens of thousands of ordinary Americans who lost business, had their mortgages or rent jeopardized, and other consequences of no paychecks and uncertainty. It also damaged the entire economy. The previous hostage taking caused the credit rating of the United States to be lowered for the first time in history.
Most Republicans seem to live in a Fox bubble where there are no real consequences. They are insulated from the harm they do. If there were an attack by terrorists, of course they would blame the president as usual.
When essential personnel have to work for no pay and lack the administrative support they would normally have, of course this creates a security vacuum. It will also mean gaps in national security in other ways with 30,000 people furloughed from DHS.
Adding this poison pill to a standard budget bill is once again hostage taking and not government. Republicans threaten to damage the country in their temper tantrums, and they do so, endangering all Americans.
Members of Congress swore an oath of office to "defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". It is an act of treason to deliberately weaken national defense for partisanship.
Most Republicans seem to live in a Fox bubble where there are no real consequences. They are insulated from the harm they do. If there were an attack by terrorists, of course they would blame the president as usual.
When essential personnel have to work for no pay and lack the administrative support they would normally have, of course this creates a security vacuum. It will also mean gaps in national security in other ways with 30,000 people furloughed from DHS.
Adding this poison pill to a standard budget bill is once again hostage taking and not government. Republicans threaten to damage the country in their temper tantrums, and they do so, endangering all Americans.
Members of Congress swore an oath of office to "defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". It is an act of treason to deliberately weaken national defense for partisanship.
15
The legitimacy of the President's orders are being contested in the courts. So why not pass a clean bill funding the DHS and let the courts decide whether Obama's actions are legal or not?
12
It would impact their ability to send inflammatory emails asking for money.
8
One can only hope that the shutdown is permanent and that we get rid of the the 'Homeland' department that sounds like something out of the Third Reich. What we need are highly efficient sectors put back under more efficient government departments. DHS is bloated and problematic in so many ways. And besides, this is all in a way 'much ado about nothing' since even if the bill is passed, Obama will veto it.
5
Our Republican Congress is on recess, and the border many of them used as a talking point during election is to be left in a weakened state? What has happened to this gung-ho group of politicians who were elected on stronger border security but now walk away for a break instead of passing a Bill the President can sign?
I really don't understand either the politics or the people. If Republican Congressmen believe the President is acting in an unconstitutional manner they should start the impeachment process. Elsewise they should produce the legislation we need to operate this country and forget the trip home.
I really don't understand either the politics or the people. If Republican Congressmen believe the President is acting in an unconstitutional manner they should start the impeachment process. Elsewise they should produce the legislation we need to operate this country and forget the trip home.
8
It's just a kabuki play. No reason to get excited. The Washington Monument will never close.
2
It may well be just 'kabuki", but it is not "play" when we are paying for their ticket to the theatre. Congress needs to begin to work for the people. Even a lowly TSA agent needs to feed the family. Forcing any government employee to work for free is a great imposition, and one that we should not place on our people. Shame.
5
Obama's executive amnesty has been ruled unconstitutional and its implementation halted. Senate democrats need to support the rule of law and approve the Republican budget that funds DHS.
4
"has been ruled unconstitutional" -- by whom, when, and where? An injunction is not a ruling.
9
What? Doesn't the ruling take away the Republicans' justification for their incomplete budget? With the issue of executive orders now taken care of, the Republicans no longer have even a weak, disingenuous (and anti-rule-of-law, by the way) argument about the Constitution. It's time to deliver a clean bill.
5
You are correct.
The emperor
Has a belt and suspenders
But no pants
I picked
A good weekend to travel
by car
Has a belt and suspenders
But no pants
I picked
A good weekend to travel
by car
1
The time has come to stop congressional pay/benefits until the members do their jobs. That will be incentive enough to at least get the basic work performed. Right?
7
Agreed but how would we get that passed since these clowns pass the laws?
2
Let the GOP shutdown the department and let's see what they do when someone dies as a result of an attack--when will these idiots, who pass for lawmakers, grow a brain and realize they are playing with people's lives!
4
They will blame Obama, of course
3
The Republican majority of the so called New American Congress is showing it is as dysfunctional and irresponsible as they were in the previous 113th Congress. The recent injunction entered by Judge Hanen has temporarily stayed President Obama's executive order delaying deportation action against five million undocumented resident foreigners and extension of work permits, Social Security registration and other non enforcement related provisions.
It is therefore totally unnecessary and in fact counterproductive to Republicans' stated agenda to allow the Department of Homeland Security to stop operating entirely. Judge Hanen's injunction restores the status quo in DHS immigration enforcement until further appellate court review.
The President Obama's budgetary request pertaining to his executive order can be withheld from authorized funding until further orders by the federal judiciary. I fail to understand the logic of Republicans shuttering DHS entirely,and as consequence,turning what they maintain is imperfect,flawed or ineffective immigration enforcement into no enforcement.
Passing a clean DHS permanent funding, inclusive of any addition funding authorizations for President Obama's action pursuant to his executive order, currently enjoined pursuant to Judge Hanen's order, would allow DHS to continue its vital work in securing the homeland, processing applications for visas and citizenship by foreigners who are complying with current immigration laws.
It is therefore totally unnecessary and in fact counterproductive to Republicans' stated agenda to allow the Department of Homeland Security to stop operating entirely. Judge Hanen's injunction restores the status quo in DHS immigration enforcement until further appellate court review.
The President Obama's budgetary request pertaining to his executive order can be withheld from authorized funding until further orders by the federal judiciary. I fail to understand the logic of Republicans shuttering DHS entirely,and as consequence,turning what they maintain is imperfect,flawed or ineffective immigration enforcement into no enforcement.
Passing a clean DHS permanent funding, inclusive of any addition funding authorizations for President Obama's action pursuant to his executive order, currently enjoined pursuant to Judge Hanen's order, would allow DHS to continue its vital work in securing the homeland, processing applications for visas and citizenship by foreigners who are complying with current immigration laws.
5
@Memnon --
What you say is all too true. But if the Republican majority were to act reasonably, as you suggest, then how would they embarrass Obama, whip their Tea Party followers into a frenzy over two of their favorite hobgoblins (illegal aliens and terrorists around the corner) or keep their faces on the nightly news?
What you say is all too true. But if the Republican majority were to act reasonably, as you suggest, then how would they embarrass Obama, whip their Tea Party followers into a frenzy over two of their favorite hobgoblins (illegal aliens and terrorists around the corner) or keep their faces on the nightly news?
2
The Republican party continues to be absolutely tone-deaf to any group other than the far-Right. Not a recipe for success in national elections. As a liberal Democrat, I am always amazed by their cluelessness.
9
I'm so disgusted by this new squabble that perhaps I have not been paying enough attention and don't fully understand.
Why can't Congress pass a bill funding the Department of Homeland Security divisions that both parties can agree on and leave out tacked on amendments and references to executive orders on immigration, DACA, DAPA and the rest?
Why can't Congress pass a bill funding the Department of Homeland Security divisions that both parties can agree on and leave out tacked on amendments and references to executive orders on immigration, DACA, DAPA and the rest?
4
Uh, because it politics instead of government.
4
It's short sided to be using Homeland Security as a pawn at this time. While we're being faced by major terrorist threats, the Republicans are choosing to stage a political drama. Right now is the worst timing, and I hope the Democrats will be bold enough to say so. Also it's "no big deal" to delay a few paychecks? It certainly would cause my family financial stress. We're just now in recovery mode. So many people are living paycheck to paycheck.
5
The real audience is the media. How a shutdown is written or spoken about determines who, ultimately, people will blame. Republicans were blamed in the past because they filibustered and prevented a vote. Now the shoe is on the other foot and Democrats are in a filibuster position. So we'll see who gets the blame?
Having said that, from a tactical position, I'm surprised at both camps. Obama could have waited to appeal the court decision for a week. That would have given Republicans an opportunity, if they wanted it, to pass a clean bill and simply say that we'll revisit this issue once the court had decided. Of course, both camps have their politics to deal with.
Having said that, from a tactical position, I'm surprised at both camps. Obama could have waited to appeal the court decision for a week. That would have given Republicans an opportunity, if they wanted it, to pass a clean bill and simply say that we'll revisit this issue once the court had decided. Of course, both camps have their politics to deal with.
1
Maybe they should go on strike and walk off the job if they are not going to be paid. How long can anyone go unpaid these days?
4
The president said send me a bill. Now his allies are protecting him so it won't happen. Have the vote in the senate.
4
Senate Democrats ought to be ashamed of themselves. They are ready to shut down the government to cater to folks who have broken the laws by sneaking across the border or overstaying their visas.
4
While I'm not absolutely sold on The President's EO...
"President Reagan and later President George H.W. Bush relied on this explicit authority (Executive Order) when they unilaterally exempted roughly 1.5 million undocumented immigrants from deportation after passing a law granting amnesty to millions more."
"President Reagan and later President George H.W. Bush relied on this explicit authority (Executive Order) when they unilaterally exempted roughly 1.5 million undocumented immigrants from deportation after passing a law granting amnesty to millions more."
4
Hopefully, this game of brinksmanship will not lead to going over the edge. But if Obama blinks, it could set a precedence that reduces the traditional power of the presidency (his and future ones). If the Republicans in the House blink, they save the nation from accelerating the internal (political) war even further - but making themselves look a bit ridiculous in the process. If neither blinks, it may be a lot worse than we think -- not only damaging the economy and inviting terrorists to take advantage of our weakness, but making a mockery of governing powers we might never recover from.
4
It's curious and amusing, to watch the same folks who railed and lamented the alleged 'obstructionist GOP', now champion the filibustering efforts of the democrats.
2
How so? Whether it's an overhaul of the health care system or the funding of Homeland Security, Democrats are trying to do the hard work of running a government and Republicans are simply being obstructionists. The question of which party is using the filibuster is irrelevant.
7
The notion that this is simply a policy dispute is ridiculous. The Republicans have put an unrelated issue, immigration, at the heart of a funding bill. They are the ones who will be held responsible.
8
How is this unrelated? How is it not a policy dispute? HS has oversight over immigration. Its a monumental policy concern when a President, with the stroke of his pen, can put millions of people on the path to citizenship. If you aren't being deported for a deportable offense, the path effectively begins.
What is ridiculous are our elected officials, on both sides of the issue, putting politics about good government.
What is ridiculous are our elected officials, on both sides of the issue, putting politics about good government.
Mrs. Popeye Ming, when Reagan and Bush I did similar measures, even after Congress had spoken, but failed to go as far as Congress had, neither executive action was deemed unconstitutional and the Dems did not shut down gov't over it.
4
The DHS employees who would not be paid in the event of a shutdown should simply not show up for work. Walk out. It's time to teach the republican politicians that they are playing with fire.
2
The Republicans control Congress and they just want to show us all how they are different and can really get things done. So their shutting down DHS, I'm impressed. Clearly, they have no idea what the needs and priorities of most Americans are. Congress could get a lot done if they worked on just the things that polls show both parties want done. But keeping the partisan political pot boiling is more important than anything the nation needs done. It almost as if they are working for someone else rather than the American people.
4
@Robert Carabas
You nailed it when you said of the Republicans, "It's almost as if they are working for someone else rather than the American people."
Or did you really miss the memos from Citizens United, Cato Institute, the Koch Brothers, et al?
You nailed it when you said of the Republicans, "It's almost as if they are working for someone else rather than the American people."
Or did you really miss the memos from Citizens United, Cato Institute, the Koch Brothers, et al?
1
Once again, Republicans are holding a gun to America's head and threatening to pull the trigger if they don't get their way on everything.
12
This should not be taken lightly. And the argument that eventually staff will be paid is a weak one. I live and work in Washington, D.C. and when the government shut down in 2013, the impact was felt immediately. Local businesses, coffee houses, day care providers, drugstores, dry cleaners,etc., all of which are dependent on federal employees in the downtown area as well as the suburbs, suffered tremendous losses as did METRO transit system.
3
I'll be near the head of the line blaming Boehner if they cut off funding for Homeland Security and one person dies as a result. #BlameBoehner will be all over social media. I hope he smartens up and changes his position. This fish will stink from the head. The house created this mess by linking Immigration enforcement policies to security funding. The house will be held responsible if adverse anything happens as a result. Congress needs to get their act together and start functioning. They don't even need to function well. They just need to function.
4
President Obama should call their bluff by shutting down all of DHS if Congress does not pass their appropriation. That means no airline flights, no border crossings, no Secret Service, no Coast Guard. See how long it takes the GOP to get serious.
1
While I'm not a huge fan of the President's action, it is legal and has been defended across the board by dozens of US legal scholars. Even the conservative Federalist Society said this action was firmly within the President's power. Interesting that no member of Congress opposed to this can explain specifically how this is unconstitutional.
Setting deportation priorities and deferring action on immigration has been used multiple times by Presidents of both parties. All that distinguishes Obama's action is the number of immigrants to which it applies.
Ironic that the majority party, which so often claims to be the "real" defenders of our Constitution and National Security is so flippant about letting DHS go unfunded. Congressional Republicans also disregard DHS and DOD warnings that climate change will destabilize regions across the globe and act as a "threat multiplier."
So much for that narrative...
Setting deportation priorities and deferring action on immigration has been used multiple times by Presidents of both parties. All that distinguishes Obama's action is the number of immigrants to which it applies.
Ironic that the majority party, which so often claims to be the "real" defenders of our Constitution and National Security is so flippant about letting DHS go unfunded. Congressional Republicans also disregard DHS and DOD warnings that climate change will destabilize regions across the globe and act as a "threat multiplier."
So much for that narrative...
5
Don't shut it down: eliminate it.
Let's go back to having the component agencies run on their own, without this bureaucratic encumbrance that was designed to make Americans feel safer.
I don't see where there is a need for a parent agency. The agencies are perfectly capable of sharing and coordinating without this waste of money. Yes, there were coordination problems before 9/11, but I don't see those recurring.
Let's go back to having the component agencies run on their own, without this bureaucratic encumbrance that was designed to make Americans feel safer.
I don't see where there is a need for a parent agency. The agencies are perfectly capable of sharing and coordinating without this waste of money. Yes, there were coordination problems before 9/11, but I don't see those recurring.
3
Surely this has to be a bluff. God forbid that a terrorist incident were to transpire during said shutdown. The narrative that Republicans care more about scoring points against the President than they do about the safety of the American people would be cast in stone. It's hard to imagine that Republicans would be willing to sacrifice their chances in 2016 for that, but I guess they've displayed this level of stupidity before.
3
The staggering hypocrisy of certain Republican "leaders"...one only has to imagine what they would be saying if it were Barack Obama who was forcing a shutdown of Homeland Security to comprehend what their game is actually all about.
4
In what sane universe do the people's elected representatives play chicken with the nation's security? In a time when ISIS, Al Queda, and any ten year old with a computer appear to be smarter than the children playing "mine is bigger" in the capital sandbox, how can Congress possibly justify shutting down Homeland Security? It may to some be "sham," and it may to others be the fault of the President for attempting to extend compassion in a time of mean-spiritedness. It doesn't matter. Our security is at stake. I only hope that by the time the Republicans would reap the price of their lunacy there is still a nation to protect.
6
While I agree with much of what you say, the fact remains that our national security has been and remains severely breached by the flood of undocumented persons. This is not the 19th century when open doors worked just fine and the most dangerous weapon was a musket. Kind heartedness can get us killed. A government that couldn't connect the dots before 9/11 probably can't distinguish the dangerous from those seeking opportunity. Whether run by Republicans or Democrats, the behemoth of HS doesn't inspire much confidence. Anyone who doesn't think that radical sleeper cells have already entered the country pretending to be Hispanic are far more optimistic than I am. Thus, a blanket amnesty is very frightening.
@ Mrs. Popeye Ming says,
"Anyone who doesn't think that radical sleeper cells have already entered the country pretending to be Hispanic are far more optimistic than I am. Thus, a blanket amnesty is very frightening"
Please don't lose sleep over this one. First of all, there is no plan for a blanket amnesty. Obama's plan is to deport criminals.
Google a list of terrorist acts around the world during the past 15 years and show me the Hispanics (other than those involved in internal drug wars in their own countries) who have been wreaking havoc in our world.
I am not frightened at the prospect of opening the road to naturalization for children brought to the US by their parents, nor do I fear a terrorist attack by the legions of Hispanics who pick our fruit , tend our California gardens, and care for the elderly with grace and compassion.
Get over it!
"Anyone who doesn't think that radical sleeper cells have already entered the country pretending to be Hispanic are far more optimistic than I am. Thus, a blanket amnesty is very frightening"
Please don't lose sleep over this one. First of all, there is no plan for a blanket amnesty. Obama's plan is to deport criminals.
Google a list of terrorist acts around the world during the past 15 years and show me the Hispanics (other than those involved in internal drug wars in their own countries) who have been wreaking havoc in our world.
I am not frightened at the prospect of opening the road to naturalization for children brought to the US by their parents, nor do I fear a terrorist attack by the legions of Hispanics who pick our fruit , tend our California gardens, and care for the elderly with grace and compassion.
Get over it!
1
We could all do with a little less paranoia. If shutting down Homeland Insecurity brings that about I'm all for it.
4
Well, the people elected what they wanted - this is democracy at work to the country's detriment. Makes it really astounding to list Obama's accomplishments in the last 6.5 years notwithstanding one-term Mitchie and his gang.
5
Last week, the Coast Guard saved a father and son sailing through the New England blizzard. TSA prevented 27 LOADED handguns from being taken on planes. Customs caught a wanted child predator at Dulles airport. I am fairly confident most Americans want their tax dollars used to maintain these services and the people who perform them. I certainly do.
9
I guess this is the GOP "governing" we were promised.
Ignore the fact that rumblings suggest an American mall might be a target of terrorists, the GOP finds it more expedient to shut down the agency overseeing such acts, so as to gain political points with their base.
I [almost] wish something would happen when they shut down our government, again, to explode the farce these pinheads are propagating.
Ignore the fact that rumblings suggest an American mall might be a target of terrorists, the GOP finds it more expedient to shut down the agency overseeing such acts, so as to gain political points with their base.
I [almost] wish something would happen when they shut down our government, again, to explode the farce these pinheads are propagating.
3
On NPR story there was a suggestions that Republicans are counting on Americans not noticing the DHS shutdown, since 90% of the workers are essential and will have to work, without payment until the shutdown is over
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2015/02/23/388338500/for-tsa-off...
"Look at the last shutdown. I think 85, 90 percent of all of the DHS workers were declared 'essential,' and came to work and they all got their paychecks," said House Republican Matt Salmon of Arizona.
I know a lot of these folks look to the Bible when it comes to abortion, homosexuality, evolution, etc.
What does it say about making people work without paying?
Leviticus 19:13
“You shall not oppress your neighbor or rob him. The wages of a hired servant shall not remain with you all night until the morning.
Deuteronomy 24:14
“You shall not oppress a hired servant who is poor and needy, whether he is one of your brothers or one of the sojourners who are in your land within your towns. You shall give him his wages on the same day, before the sun sets (for he is poor and counts on it), lest he cry against you to the Lord, and you be guilty of sin.
Proverbs 3:27-28
Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due, when it is in your power to do it. Do not say to your neighbor, “Go, and come again, tomorrow I will give it”—when you have it with you.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2015/02/23/388338500/for-tsa-off...
"Look at the last shutdown. I think 85, 90 percent of all of the DHS workers were declared 'essential,' and came to work and they all got their paychecks," said House Republican Matt Salmon of Arizona.
I know a lot of these folks look to the Bible when it comes to abortion, homosexuality, evolution, etc.
What does it say about making people work without paying?
Leviticus 19:13
“You shall not oppress your neighbor or rob him. The wages of a hired servant shall not remain with you all night until the morning.
Deuteronomy 24:14
“You shall not oppress a hired servant who is poor and needy, whether he is one of your brothers or one of the sojourners who are in your land within your towns. You shall give him his wages on the same day, before the sun sets (for he is poor and counts on it), lest he cry against you to the Lord, and you be guilty of sin.
Proverbs 3:27-28
Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due, when it is in your power to do it. Do not say to your neighbor, “Go, and come again, tomorrow I will give it”—when you have it with you.
8
America has such a short term memory and in a showing of "sticking it to the president" voted straight down the line republican in the midterm elections with nary a thought of how the republicans act nothing short of children holding their breath if they don't get their way. Risk the safety of us all and cause suffering to every furloughed employee. Way to go -- again -- Republicans!
5
Democrats have been exaggerating the likely impact of a shutdown--though there is certainly a limit to how long workers will continue to show up without pay. But that brings me to a question that has been on my mind.
How is it that TSA employees are "essential" to the protection of life and property. Let's say tomorrow that 50-90% of the TSA employees do not arrive for work. The ones who do show up would most likely determine that they will have to run fewer or even no check lines at the terminals. That will mean delays or even cause planes to sit empty on the ground.
I don't see how such a situation directly threatens life or property.
How is it that TSA employees are "essential" to the protection of life and property. Let's say tomorrow that 50-90% of the TSA employees do not arrive for work. The ones who do show up would most likely determine that they will have to run fewer or even no check lines at the terminals. That will mean delays or even cause planes to sit empty on the ground.
I don't see how such a situation directly threatens life or property.
2
Sheer genius! Don't just shut down the government out of reflex opposition to the President, shut down all air travel in the U.S.
6
Perhaps you've heard of 9-11 when groups of armed terrorists went on board planes and killed almost 3,000 Americans? And the underwear bomber? And others. TSA is there for a reason.
3
We will probably find out that we will be able to live without a DHS after all. The security theater for which we are wasting our money costs more than we are willing to invest in medical research. Unfortunately, we won't remember that and thus not even regret it when Alzheimer strikes.
2
In the end everybody always get paid. Saying that furloughs result in feds not being paid is not true. They ALWAYS get paid.
2
Or else NoVa would be a ghost town by now.
2
J. Santa Rita.....Don't let the poor souls who work in the dreaded private sector know that.
Obama's abuse of presidential power needs to be stopped and the best way to accomplish that objective is by defunding any government agency implementing executive orders that violates Congress' role in government as defined by the Constitution. So as long as furloughed federal workers do not retroactively receive back pay for not working, I'm in favor of shutting down the DHS for as long as it takes to stop his abuse of power. Once furloughed DHS workers understand that they are being hurt in their wallets by Obama, they and their unions will force him to repeal his patently illegal power grab.
4
Obama's abuse of presidential power needs to be stopped and the best way to accomplish that objective is by defunding any government agency implementing executive orders that violates....Or maybe they could pass an immigration bill instead.
8
In the meantime, I am sure that the Republicans will be hard at work to solve our broken immigration system. Would you like to buy a bridge?
4
Ha ha ha.....so that's the plan. An uprising of Homeland Security staff. Doesn't that come across as a just a tad loopy?
Congressional GOP blamed the President when they were in the minority. Congressional GOP blamed the President when they controlled the house. Congressional GOP blames the President now they control both chambers. Who will they blame if a Democrat were not the President?
10
I think they should shut it down if the senate won't vote on the bill the NYT is cheerleading Obama's pending veto of the Keystone bill, because its his decision to make. Well immigration law is congresses decision to make so why would you support Obama's moves there? The means justify the ends type thinking?
Also this part makes no sense.
"At the Transportation Security Administration, which screens 1.8 million passengers daily, roughly 5,500 — or about 10 percent — of its employees would be furloughed, forcing some of the security screeners and officials in the field to be diverted to help with those administrative tasks."
How can someone be considered nonessential if their job has to be done by someone who is considered essential if they are not there?
Also this part makes no sense.
"At the Transportation Security Administration, which screens 1.8 million passengers daily, roughly 5,500 — or about 10 percent — of its employees would be furloughed, forcing some of the security screeners and officials in the field to be diverted to help with those administrative tasks."
How can someone be considered nonessential if their job has to be done by someone who is considered essential if they are not there?
1
Ask the Republicans -- they've thought this through.
1
This will rebound on the republicans - and much to their detriment. Like clockwork, seems they just can't resist a public relations disaster.
4
The Congress can come up with an immigration bill and override Obama's executive action any time they want to. The truth is they are terrified of having to stand up and be counted on the immigration issue. It is politically much safer to block the President by refusing to fund Homeland Security. It is simply a matter of choosing to put their own personal political prospects ahead of the good of the country. Maybe this time the public will begin to understand what the Congress has been doing the past four years.
14
The Republicans are playing games with our lives.
9
Bring the drama, Linda. The freeway and snow is what's playing games with 100 million American's lives, all the excitable news anchors said yesterday. There's some truth to that.
The GOP's decision, and especially Boehner's decision, to purposefully shutdown the DHS and put this nation at risk because of some petty rivalry is an outrage! They are willing to endanger millions of Americans, and force thousands more to report to work and put their own lives at risk over ideology that is outdated and bigoted. These are, in no doubt, acts of treason, and every single GOP member who allowed this to happen should be relieved of their positions and tried.
This is the second government shutdown in as many years, and what's mind-boggling is fact that there are still people out there who are willing to vote these clowns into the White House. I fear for the future this country.
This is the second government shutdown in as many years, and what's mind-boggling is fact that there are still people out there who are willing to vote these clowns into the White House. I fear for the future this country.
3
"Concerns Mount as Homeland Security Shutdown Looks Likely"
Looks Likely?
Not news, folks. At best it's entertainment.
Looks Likely?
Not news, folks. At best it's entertainment.
I hope there's a procedure for recalling congressional representatives, since they are obviously not doing their job.
4
Keep in mind that shutting down government agencies costs considerably more than running them, due to the massive administrative and logistical planning that agencies must undertake to prepare for shutdowns. You want to talk about wasting taxpayer money? Money spent on endless contingency planning to prepare for Republican shutdowns is money wasted.
14
Watching Boehner blame the Senate and McConnell blame the House would be hilarious were it not so predictable. They have now proven they can't, or won't, govern so I hope they get the votes in 2016 they have earned: none. They play us as if we are stupid. We are not. Any vote for a Republican seems a vote against America. I love my country. Where are the promised jobs, the much needed Voting Rights Bill or Ammendment and so much more? With improvements to our economy, the markets and the increase in jobs since 2008, I dream of what could be done if the Republicans loved America more than they dislike President Obama, if they would do the jobs for which we pay them.
11
Yup!.........the insanity of humanity looms large in the Republican party. The Republicans want to rule the world spreading the military everywhere but won't support actually protecting the homeland. This is pretty consistent with their scatter-brained inconsistent behavior.
4
Perfect timing...the Gov of Texas, Greg Abbott, says that about 20,000 unauthorized people have been apprehended at the Texas border since Jan 1st of this year.
I wonder how many are getting through?
I wonder how many are getting through?
5
Great reporting and instructive analysis by Ms. Parker, per usual. This was a clear case of Republican overconfidence and a significant misreading of the situation by even top GOP lawmakers. The fact that the House and Senate are now controlled by the same party does NOT change the underlying facts that they are different institutions, with different rules. McConnell cannot pass the House's bill under the Rule of 60, never mind that President Obama will veto it anyway. Of course it is horribly unfair to DHS workers, but they are just pawns in this larger game. Until the GOP House conservatives accept the fact that their bills will never become law, we're going to go through various iterations of this drama for two more years.
2
Any time that any or all of the government is shut down due to Congress, Senators & Congressmen should stop getting paid, as well. Some won't notice the difference; but some will.
4
This is potentially a very dangerous situation. Yes, many Homeland Security staff will be required to work, but they will not be receiving their paychecks. It is extremely demotivating (and demeaning) to be asked to work without pay, and I fear that many staff will do less-than-thorough jobs if this comes to pass.
Consider, then, what would happen if a terrorist manages to get a gun onto a plane because a Homeland Security agent slipped up because he was too preoccupied at work about falling behind on his rent payments. If something like this comes to pass, I hope that Congress and the President will accept joint responsibility for any American lives lost, and resign in disgrace.
Both sides of the aisle need to wake up and act responsibly.
Consider, then, what would happen if a terrorist manages to get a gun onto a plane because a Homeland Security agent slipped up because he was too preoccupied at work about falling behind on his rent payments. If something like this comes to pass, I hope that Congress and the President will accept joint responsibility for any American lives lost, and resign in disgrace.
Both sides of the aisle need to wake up and act responsibly.
2
It appears to me the problem is only with one side of the aisle - the Republican one.
5
The House really needs to go back to doing what it's good at; repealing Obamacare, banning abortion, making sure no rights are denied to white people. When they wander off to try making a political point to please their base, they are just going to be blamed for bad results.
It seems to have just occurred to Senate Republicans that there is a procedure called the filibuster. GOP commentators are outraged that a minority of Senators can prevent them from shoving their important legislation down our throats.
If Republicans could just find a way of electing the next president with 47% of the vote, and hold on to the Senate, they could shut things and cut things at will. Then our great country could experience the bounties of true Tea Party rule.
It seems to have just occurred to Senate Republicans that there is a procedure called the filibuster. GOP commentators are outraged that a minority of Senators can prevent them from shoving their important legislation down our throats.
If Republicans could just find a way of electing the next president with 47% of the vote, and hold on to the Senate, they could shut things and cut things at will. Then our great country could experience the bounties of true Tea Party rule.
6
Several commenters here seem to be under the impression that if the Orwellian-named Department of Homeland Security shuts down, the nation will be defenseless. This is absurd. We still have a functioning Army, Navy and Marines, and more weaponry than practically every other nation on Earth combined. DHS is nothing but a bloated bureaucracy created in a panic so the government could appear to be "doing something" post-9/11 and has proven to be functionally useless, as the Boston Marathon bombing showed. Like the grotesquely named Patriot Act, it's nothing but the result of hysterical overreaction. Shut it down and be done with it.
8
I agree, but this lack of a funding bill will not actually "shut it down". It will merely require workers to work without pay or take furlough days until a funding bill is passed. If Congress wants to actually shut down the DHS, I agree with that move, but that takes organization and thought (something our Congress seriously lacks), rather than this ridiculous petty, political move.
2
Any time that any member of the federal government is forced to work without a paycheck, the first to do so should be members of Congress and their staff. That might affect their eagerness to bring the government to a halt over a measure they can't get passed anyway.
15
Great! Just when our risks for extremist actions (hacking, bombing, etc) are higher than ever, our esteemed Republican "leaders" decide to diminish our protection for political grandstanding reasons. Not that they care, but the blood will be on their hands.
9
This is what happens when ideologues get elected to Congress, rather than folks who get the concept of "Let's Make a Deal." And the number one, enabler-in-chief is Rupert Murdoch, who decided that news that focused on right-wing opinion instead of fact would be a grand idea. The result is, that a lot of people in TV land confuse propaganda with fact and elect their representatives accordingly.
7
If Homeland Security is even temporarily closed and something terrible happens, the GOP will pay the penalty for years to come.
Closing HS could really come back "to bite" the GOP and is a stupid idea.
Closing HS could really come back "to bite" the GOP and is a stupid idea.
3
What exactly is the point of Homeland Security? What is it that this agency does that the NSA, the CIA, the FBI, the military, military intelligence, state and local enforcement doesn't do? It's just another money siphon. If the rest of our federal and state agencies have the maturity to share information, then there is no need for excessive agencies. Homeland Security was created out of a failure of the agencies we have in place. If the agencies work efficiently and as directed, there is no need for yet another agency. Funding or not, shut it down.
9
What does DHS do? Umm, plant inspections at the borders? Secret Service? Computer incident response? Customs? INS? Ever hear of the U.S. Coast Guard?
1
Where is the filibuster coming from? Let's see. When democrats propose bills that are in deep conflict with republicans and republicans do not pass them they are obstructing. When republicans pass legislation that democrats don't like and they filibuster, the republicans are still obstructing? Sorry, there would be funding if the democrats would stop the filibuster. Not the republicans shutting down this time, it's the dems.
5
"Where is the filibuster coming from?"...... What does Obama's executive action on immigration have to do with funding homeland security? If the Republicans don't like Obama's executive order they can pass an immigration bill any time they want. Holding up funding of Homeland Security amounts to government by blackmail and deserves to be rejected.
7
You know I was just reading about reactions to Giuliani's remark that Obama doesn't love our country .... first off, that's simplistic, sensationalized thing to say, but if it were true, who could possibly blame him. So many of our elected officials are absolutely incapable or rhetoric, or intellectual reasoning or negotiation, instead things come to a crawl or a standstill (with or without a shutdown). It so grossly apparent that many of the GOP don't love our country, they are in fact in love with ideological principles that don't serve our nation, of course their closeted benefactors who are behind all this dysfunction.
14
Then why did America elect the GOP in record numbers in the 2010 Midterms, and do so again -- in even larger numbers -- in the 2014 Midterms? What do they know that you don't?
2
Record numbers? I think not. Only the most committed true believers show up to vote in primaries. Why don't you know that?
2
Do I need to remind Charles that America also voted TWICE for W. Bush? No greater mistake by the American people was thrust upon us than that double disaster. The 2014 midterms had the lowest voter turnout since 1942, a war year. No one ever said that America doesn't screw up from time to time. 2010 and 2014 are great examples. Watch out for 2016. We'll see the Repubs begin to re-write their obituaries as they did in 2012.
3
Yet the GOP will keep telling us this is the greatest country in the world. I can't wait to hear Rep. Peter T King spin this one. One might argue that these guys don't love America.
8
The joke is on the taxpayers. 30,000 people get a paid vacation while the other 200,000 go to work as normal
The President won't back down, he can't. Congress will cave, they always do
The President won't back down, he can't. Congress will cave, they always do
1
Let me get this right... The Republicans are willing to shutter or at best cripple the DHS because they want to prevent several million people (mainly young people) from being able to stay here under the president's EO? Seriously? I think almost any group of 3rd graders could run this government better than the idiots currently in Congress. Blackmailing, hostage taking and making thousands suffer because you don't agree with something that the president did, that is completely unrelated, isn't governance It is truly the opposite and I cannot articulate how tired I am of these "representatives" not doing their jobs. Furlough them and their staffs instead....
10
What else can you expect? The tea-party inspired GOP has worked hard to change this Country from "Us" to "Them"!
A sleight-of-hand maneuvre that has changed the synaptic patterns of all but the least credulous.
A sleight-of-hand maneuvre that has changed the synaptic patterns of all but the least credulous.
5
The GOP can't govern.
16
Naturally, Republicans are claiming the potential shutdown is their way of defending the Constitution. They had eight years while G.W. Bush was president to defend the Constitution regarding illegal immigration (defending our borders) and what did these charlatans produce? Nada. This is an important bit of information because Republicans are only nominally leading the charge to deport illegal immigrants. They actually want them here because of the cheap labor, but they don't want them to get anywhere near citizen status because Republicans know most Hispanics vote for democrats.
That's the real rub. In other words, more lies to camouflage their real motives. This is such a great country. I'm going out to buy a flag today!
That's the real rub. In other words, more lies to camouflage their real motives. This is such a great country. I'm going out to buy a flag today!
28
Without a leader who can lead and bring people together in compromise, unsurprisingly, you essentially have the biggest company in America without a CEO.
You are right. John Boehner obviously can't lead.
9
Hard to blame the leader when the GOP stubbornly refuses to compromise at all for 6 years and counting. We essentially have the biggest company in America without middle management that will show up and work.
2
This will prove that we don't need DHS and the GOP.
4
One needs to wonder who loves their political party more than they love their country?
17
The cynic in me is thinking, "How calculating to suddenly announce threats to the mall of america front and center on the evening news." I wonder how many such threats have gone unmentioned? I wonder why, when we were advised to go shopping just days after 9/11, that we are now being warned of an imminent shopping danger that only DHS can defend us from? Extortion?
8
The video threat was released on Saturday -- what do you want?
Shut it down. It never should have been created. Move responsibilities back to the agencies that had them before DHS existed. Even the name is awful.
15
"It never should have been created." Agreed.
"Even the name is awful." Agreed; Orwellian/Hitlerian.
But, you can't "[m]ove responsibilities back to the agencies that had them before DHS existed" by defunding DHS. That requires legislation, and the Boehner-McConnell Congress doesn't do legislation.
"Even the name is awful." Agreed; Orwellian/Hitlerian.
But, you can't "[m]ove responsibilities back to the agencies that had them before DHS existed" by defunding DHS. That requires legislation, and the Boehner-McConnell Congress doesn't do legislation.
The people who should be working without pay are the 535 members of Congress who have spent the last few years proving that they are completely worthless. Leave actual working federal employees alone and stop funding congressional salaries until they resume doing something worth being paid for.
36
The American people elected them to do a job -- in the largest Midterm rout of Democrats since 1932. You're not expected to like it, just step aside.
1
"Resume"? The last several Congresses have been worthless.
If employees who aren't getting paid stay home, will they have money deducted from a paycheck of zero?
1
this scares me, not because DHS is not funded, but because eventually we'll see a revised DHS bill without the immigration stuff but with other riders, one of which will certainly throw DC voters under the bus (again), and, as we've seen before, the President doesn't care about DC voters, so he'll sign it.
8
Play it again (uncle) Sam---- there's something a bit unsettling about being held hostage to mean-spirited ignorance - yet again. Where's decency & compassion when we need them?
4
85% of DHS employees will be working during a so called "shut-down". They will be paid when funding is approved. Those who are furloughed and do not show up for work will be also paid when funding is approved. Of course this situation is totally ludicrous because it makes no sense to furlough people and then pay them for the time they did not work. That is what has happened in the past. The federal government should not
furlough anyone if they are going to continue the practice of paying furloughed back pay for not working. Where is the logic in that? If DHS employees have difficulty riding out the pay check deferral maybe they shouldn't be working for DHS. Everyone should have a reserve for such events. They all have lifetime jobs, just try to fire one of them, with good pay and benefits , so there isn't any excuse for them not have at least three months of pay saved in reserve for so called Shut-downs.
furlough anyone if they are going to continue the practice of paying furloughed back pay for not working. Where is the logic in that? If DHS employees have difficulty riding out the pay check deferral maybe they shouldn't be working for DHS. Everyone should have a reserve for such events. They all have lifetime jobs, just try to fire one of them, with good pay and benefits , so there isn't any excuse for them not have at least three months of pay saved in reserve for so called Shut-downs.
3
So now it's the fault of the DHS employees? Sounds like uniquely republican thinking.
5
Penny wise and dollar foolish.
They know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
Both hallmarks of the GOP.
They know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
Both hallmarks of the GOP.
2
I'm sorry but this is insanity. If a private company stated that they were going to not be able to pay their employees until who knows when, but still expected them to show up to work and not receive their regularly scheduled paychecks because the employees "should have at least three months of pay saved in reserve" there would be complete outrage. How is it any different with the government?
It's great way to run a country. The thought that opposing parties could discuss compromises that would pass with both sides working for the benefit of the country are totally alien concepts these days. A pox on all of them.
3
Yet another arm of government shut down by Republicans? Is it Ground Hog day?
10
What are you talking about? The House passed a funding bill and sent it to the Senate. The Democrats - the MINORITY in the Senate - are filibustering it. The only people shutting anything down are the cry-baby Dems.
6
The House has yet to pass a clean funding bill. The Republicans are prepared to shut down DHS in order to make their point -- something about executive orders, blah blah blah. I stopped listening when the federal court in Texas ruled the President's orders unconstitutional. After that, what's the point of a shutdown? Do the House Republicans not read the papers?
Two Thoughts:
A comprehensive immigration bill was hashed out and passed by a bi-partisan majority in the Senate and sent to the House last year. (The Senate Republicans could have even filibustered it and prevented a vote) The ultra conservative Republican House would not even take it up. They could have debated it, amended it, passed it and sent it back to the Senate for reconciliation. Never happened which lead to Pres. Obama issuing his executive order. All of this could have been avoided if the House simply did its job.
Second, there should be a law that if any part of the government is shut down, no one in Congress or their staff's should be paid or receive a penny of any kind of reimbursement. Let them work for FREE !!!
A comprehensive immigration bill was hashed out and passed by a bi-partisan majority in the Senate and sent to the House last year. (The Senate Republicans could have even filibustered it and prevented a vote) The ultra conservative Republican House would not even take it up. They could have debated it, amended it, passed it and sent it back to the Senate for reconciliation. Never happened which lead to Pres. Obama issuing his executive order. All of this could have been avoided if the House simply did its job.
Second, there should be a law that if any part of the government is shut down, no one in Congress or their staff's should be paid or receive a penny of any kind of reimbursement. Let them work for FREE !!!
29
Mitch McConnell, on Nov. 5, 2014:
"Let me make it clear: There will be no government shutdowns."
Guess Mitch lied. And the Republicans are the party that can't govern.
No real surprise.
"Let me make it clear: There will be no government shutdowns."
Guess Mitch lied. And the Republicans are the party that can't govern.
No real surprise.
215
It's Senate Democrats who are shutting down the government this time. And guess who the people they're protecting are? You guessed right! Illegal Immigrants. People who broke the law by sneaking across the border or overstaying their tourist/student visas.
5
McConnell would be a fool to promise there will be no shutdowns. What can he do to stop the Democrats from shutting down the government?
1
Disrupting HS's work at the time we have ISIS on our hands? Really?
I have a better idea- lets cut Congress members salaries and pensions in half- that alone will compensate any funding deficit.
If it is not enough- forbid any illegal or semi-legal immigrants from getting any benefits, aid, medical help and education- that for sure will fill a hole in the budget.
I have a better idea- lets cut Congress members salaries and pensions in half- that alone will compensate any funding deficit.
If it is not enough- forbid any illegal or semi-legal immigrants from getting any benefits, aid, medical help and education- that for sure will fill a hole in the budget.
Unpaid security workers; what could go wrong?
94
What could go wrong?
We might be safer in the end. And the DHS would permanently have to deal with a lower budget.
We might be safer in the end. And the DHS would permanently have to deal with a lower budget.
2
I don't generally support the GOP.
In this case - I do. Shut it all down until we begin to respect America's immigration laws. Shut it all down.
In this case - I do. Shut it all down until we begin to respect America's immigration laws. Shut it all down.
7
Furlough Congress until the House agrees to participate in being responsible about running the country.
3
Representative Mick Mulvaney, Republican of South Carolina states that shutting down Home Land Security would "probably"worth it to defend the Constitution.
President Obama administration has postponed executive action regarding immigration complying with a court's decision, and the administration has a right to appeal this decision.
?What part of the Constitution is not being defended?
Or does Representative Mulvaney feel that it is the Republican ball and if they do not get their way they are going to take their ball and go home.
Poor,poor baby.
President Obama administration has postponed executive action regarding immigration complying with a court's decision, and the administration has a right to appeal this decision.
?What part of the Constitution is not being defended?
Or does Representative Mulvaney feel that it is the Republican ball and if they do not get their way they are going to take their ball and go home.
Poor,poor baby.
5
So this is where the GOP stands on National Security. Remember this in 2016.
4
The Republicans who love our country and drape themselves in patriotism are willing to allow us to go unprotected from danger, just to spite the president. Even if a lot of the employees are told to work, they will not be paid. How well do you think they will do their jobs under those conditions? Now I wonder how much the Republicans love the US. Maybe they weren't brought up like me.
8
STUPID!
In a word, that is what America keeps getting from its elected officials. From both parties.
How many times will republicans shut down the government with claims of 'fiscal responsibility' only to cost taxpayers an additional outrageous cost? I believe their last shut down cost an additional $18 to $23 billion.
Now, they're doing it to 'protect' the Constitution ... even though the Administrations immigration policy has been put on 'hold.' The republicans (and Democrats) have trampled on our 'constitutional rights' with a series of actions, lawsuits, etc., including the Patriot Act, Citizens United, and a host of decisions, Executive Orders, legislation and court decisions. I repeat: today's argument is simply ... STUPID!
In a word, that is what America keeps getting from its elected officials. From both parties.
How many times will republicans shut down the government with claims of 'fiscal responsibility' only to cost taxpayers an additional outrageous cost? I believe their last shut down cost an additional $18 to $23 billion.
Now, they're doing it to 'protect' the Constitution ... even though the Administrations immigration policy has been put on 'hold.' The republicans (and Democrats) have trampled on our 'constitutional rights' with a series of actions, lawsuits, etc., including the Patriot Act, Citizens United, and a host of decisions, Executive Orders, legislation and court decisions. I repeat: today's argument is simply ... STUPID!
2
In a twist of fate the liberals finally got the concervatives to do exactly what they wanted all along, by demonstrating we really don't need the Dept. of Homeland Security.
3
There seems to be a consensus here that existing agencies can absorb DHS' s core functions, which will never be targeted for elimination. Whether created for "good," "bad," or "nefarious" reasons, DHS is a Republican Frankenstein. If they want to lead the charge to shut it down -- whether for good, bad or nefarious reasons -- I say: "Have at it, it's your monster."
3
Riddle of the Day: What's lower than a snake in the grass?
Answer: John Boehner and House Republicans
Should the House Republicans put us all at risk by not funding the Homeland Security Agency, let's take a collective time out to visualize what it means to the country when we continue to elect to office these Republicans who, like small children, are willing to hold their breath until their faces turn red, to get their way.
Of course, I'm getting into unfamiliar territory here, as I never raised such a nasty, spoiled child myself. But I've heard about them. It seems that all any of them ever wants is to have all the best toys for themselves and to lord it over their peers.
Whether they go through with the shutdown or not, I urge voters to punish the Republicans for their bad faith in the next election. And the one after that, too. Etc.
Answer: John Boehner and House Republicans
Should the House Republicans put us all at risk by not funding the Homeland Security Agency, let's take a collective time out to visualize what it means to the country when we continue to elect to office these Republicans who, like small children, are willing to hold their breath until their faces turn red, to get their way.
Of course, I'm getting into unfamiliar territory here, as I never raised such a nasty, spoiled child myself. But I've heard about them. It seems that all any of them ever wants is to have all the best toys for themselves and to lord it over their peers.
Whether they go through with the shutdown or not, I urge voters to punish the Republicans for their bad faith in the next election. And the one after that, too. Etc.
7
The GOP is ready to prove once again that they are more interested in ideology than in actually governing the country.
10
What "Ideology"? It's ignorance and incompetence.
3
Ignorance and incompetence are a smokescreen for following their Koch Bros. 1% masters. Don't be fooled. They're crazy like the proverbial fox.
1
When I was a child I played a lot of board games with my brothers. One brother used to turn over the board, dumping all the pieces on the floor when he was losing. Our Republican rulers are a lot like my brother (who grew up to be a serial wife beater and a Republican in a family of Democrats, by the way).
22
How about passing a law that if any part of the federal government is shut down all payments of any kind to congresspeople cease until it is up and running again? Kind of a goose and gander thing....
3
OMG! The Department of Homerland Security is going to shut down because the Homers in our government can't govern--like that is supposed to scare me. The more "security" we have the more insecure I feel.
4
"I've fallen, and I can't get back up!" --US government
How about a new amendment specifically stating that: "in the event of the government shutting down or running out of money, members of Congress (and their staffs) shall forgo all salary, benefits, and perks until the situation is remedied"?
Bet that would rectify this dysfunctional nonsense pronto!
How about a new amendment specifically stating that: "in the event of the government shutting down or running out of money, members of Congress (and their staffs) shall forgo all salary, benefits, and perks until the situation is remedied"?
Bet that would rectify this dysfunctional nonsense pronto!
10
Do you really think that they would let it pass?
Congress in any functioning democracy, with representatives that look for the interest of the nation, can easily deal with these issues. First, Congress votes on funding a given department. If other members of congress believe they have urgent business, such as changes to immigration laws, then Congress votes on such changes. Democracy at work, if there is support for one, or the other, or both pieces of legislation, all is resolved.
But when one sector of Congress wants to hold hostage the nation unless they get their way, versus having their idea voted (and as they know rejected) as standalone legislation, then we have an usurpation of power and an attack on Democracy. This is what is happening and it must stop.
But when one sector of Congress wants to hold hostage the nation unless they get their way, versus having their idea voted (and as they know rejected) as standalone legislation, then we have an usurpation of power and an attack on Democracy. This is what is happening and it must stop.
4
The American people pay Congress with their tax dollars. If they're not up to doing their job and funding the government that serves the people, it's time for them to feel what it is like to be told to show up to work and not get paid.
2
Intoned with faux gravity, the term "border security" coming out of the mouths of President Obama and DHS Secretary Johnson is risible. Several years ago, when thousands where walking into the US DAILY, the President and DHS Secretary Napolitano declared the border SECURE, and mockingly referred to efforts to strengthen it as "putting alligators in the moat." If the DHS were shut down -- even PERMANENTLY -- the American people would feel no difference. No only will all the true front-line agencies be in place, but so will the 17 intelligence agencies, the FBI, CIA, state police, local police, etc. The DHS was a federal boondoggle created to make Americans "feel safer" after 9/11. What has it actually accomplished? It has not lifted a finger to seal our porous borders. Instead, to facilitate illegal alien entry into the US and see that no illegal aliens are deported it has destroyed the enforcement powers of all immigration supervisory agencies: ICE, USCIS and the Border Patrol. Obama is now pretending he cares about national security in order to provide a fig leaf to cover a vast illegal and unconstitutional scheme to end all immigration law. This latest move is as false as the rest. The GOP -- and, I hope, some sensible Democrats -- should defund the dictatorially created amnesty and, if necessary shut down the DHS until the rule of law is returned. The Courts are one avenue, but Congress remains front and center.
5
You do not seem to like the fact that border security is the job of (any) president, but it is. If your "unconstitutional" conspiracy exists, than it will be susceptible to litigation, with no need or justification for defunding DHS. Not only will the defunding damage the economy, but asking DHS employees to work without pay isn't going to make the border any more secure.
This is all getting out of hand, the only way we will solve this problem is by getting people out to vote and replace the members of both houses who self proclaim to be "patriots" but are ready to shut down the government. Shame on them, let us citizens unite and let us show them that we hold the keys to their future. Make sure that your neighbor goes to the voting booth and votes when the time comes, let us get rid of the legislators who care nothing for us or their country.
3
If we, the citizens of the United States unite, the Supreme court will rule it unConstitutional.
2
The Governor of my state, Republican Larry Hogan, declined to discuss the impact this shutdown would have despite the fact that Homeland Security employs thousands of Maryland's citizens and funds millions of grants for struggling fire departments statewide. For him to have run a campaign claiming that protecting jobs is his first priority and then not speak up about his own citizens' risks of not receiving a paycheck is the very definition of hypocrisy. To put people at risk of inadequate emergency response in the event of a fire? Unspeakable.
Our state and local politicians, who should have our interests even closer to heart, should not be allowed to imply consent through their silence. Do not let your silence imply consent either. Please write. Please vote.
Our state and local politicians, who should have our interests even closer to heart, should not be allowed to imply consent through their silence. Do not let your silence imply consent either. Please write. Please vote.
9
I never like the term "department of Homeland security" (I purposefully changed the capitalization to highlight my point). The term homeland has been used too many times in the past by governments who never had the best interests of the people at heart.
This department attempted to merge different agencies together, but really all it did was make a new badge, make more red-tape and layers, and didn't really change any kind of inter-agency cooperation that could have been done by other methods.
DHS needs to be unfunded and taken apart. This way, when an agency does poorly, it is actually accountable without hurting others. Should one agency wind up being superfluous, it can be taken apart without making a mess of other agencies.
The issue being debated here affects now how MANY agencies? In the past, it could have been an issue or one or two. No, DHS has to go.
This department attempted to merge different agencies together, but really all it did was make a new badge, make more red-tape and layers, and didn't really change any kind of inter-agency cooperation that could have been done by other methods.
DHS needs to be unfunded and taken apart. This way, when an agency does poorly, it is actually accountable without hurting others. Should one agency wind up being superfluous, it can be taken apart without making a mess of other agencies.
The issue being debated here affects now how MANY agencies? In the past, it could have been an issue or one or two. No, DHS has to go.
3
If President Obama’s executive order was truly unconstitutional then the Republicans should go through the courts and let the legal process decide. Going after the Homeland Security funding is a bad fight to pick and it demonstrates that politics is more important than the safety of the citizens of this country. The so called threat from immigrants is nothing compared to the real threats from ISIS. Maybe it’s time to start a recall on the politician that put their agenda ahead of the security of this country.
6
I thought when the Republicans took over Congress they had the goal of showing they could actually govern. I guess that went by the boards.
31
When Congress shuts down an essential government entity, they should receive no pay themselves until the issue is resolved. And no restitution later. Apparently they don't care how they jerk around federal employees in order to make a ridiculous political point. So let it hit their pocketbooks. They seem immune to any other pain or reason.
9
Please define "essential".
Congress has passed a funding plan for Homeland Security. The President and the Dems want to have no part of any compromise which is particularly egregious since the other two branches of government have problems with what he is doing and have used their power to halt it. The balance of power between the branches of government call for both a give and take and not by one part ruling by edict.
Now who is the party of No?
Now who is the party of No?
4
Compromise? Republicans want to totally de-fund the immigration plan that the president designed in response to Republican refusal to take up a comprehensive plan in Congress. When all you can offer is "our way or we shut it down," that is not offering a compromise.
14
The separation of powers calls for the judiciary, not the legislature, to determine the constitutionality of executive actions.
Defunding DHS is pure policy, pure brinksmanship -- it's not a "compromise" by the Republicans, it's an assault. And it certainly does not call for any "compromise" by the Democrats.
Defunding DHS is pure policy, pure brinksmanship -- it's not a "compromise" by the Republicans, it's an assault. And it certainly does not call for any "compromise" by the Democrats.
The Republicans know that the feelings of people about immigration while our economy is not providing significant improvements for most Americans while some grow ridiculously rich, is something that gains them a lot of support when they oppose the kind of efforts that the President is trying to implement. If the economy was growing well, they issue would fade because most people would feel differently. The "shutdown" will result in more illegal border crossings not being intercepted, more foul ups in all the areas covered by Homeland security employees because of diminished staffing, and more popular discontent with the Government. The President is more likely to be blamed even if the source of the problem is reduced funding by the Congress, because when the majority are discontented with both the President and the Congress they don't vote but the people who already oppose the President will be certain to vote.
2
I don't agree at all. This is a Republican Congress, and the shutdown will be blamed on Congress. The Republicans own this one, they owned all the other shutdowns, this one isn't any different. The American people know this is how Republicans govern.
6
The last election which gave the Republicans a mandate to rule, included less than 40% of those eligible to vote. 60% of 40% is 24% of those eligible to vote -- not actually a mandate, but that 24% is the right wing constituency which is driving Republican policies. Given that both the Congress and the President are held responsible for the mess by most people eligible to vote, why did the Republicans gain so many seats? Most people expressed their dissatisfaction by not voting, which gave the Republicans loyal core constituencies even more power. Bad government does not lead most people to jump in and to correct it, most people just decide that they have more important things to do than to vote.
32
This is what the American people get when they elect republicans. This is just a game the Republicans are playing to get the President to veto the homeland security funding bill. Meanwhile the dept of Homeland security will function and the employees will default on bills, and everyone including the tens of thousand, most of whom were not missed, who did not work will get back pay.
10
The fact that the Democrats are so adamant about protecting illegals that they are willing to shut down DHS is appalling. I miss the days when preserving America for its citizens and legal immigrants was bipartisan.
8
Ahem, who exactly is willing to shut down DHS here? Republicans are the author of this bill, which was designed to hold American security hostage in an attempt to bully Democrats on the immigration issue.
3
If "protecting illegals" were as unconstitutional as the Republicans claim, there would be no need to shut down DHS.
The fact that the Republicans are using this tactic suggests that they don't think they have a case. That they think that President Obama's executive action might survive its court challenge.
The fact that the Republicans are using this tactic suggests that they don't think they have a case. That they think that President Obama's executive action might survive its court challenge.
Homeland security is a hostage to the Tea Party extremists! Those folks don't care about anything other than venting their rage at "the government"! Why put security at risk for such an extreme political position? Let us hope cooler, more rational minds prevail, and this manufactured crisis is resolved in a way that does not put the country in jeopardy due to weakened security forces.
1
Apparently the ideologically driven right wing House Republicans can't even grab the life line thrown thrown to them by the Texas judge whose injunction put the President's immigration program on hold. Perhaps recognizing that they can't justify shutting down Homeland Security merely because they disagree with the President's policy, they continue to justify their actions as defending the Constitution. But while they may be of the opinion that the President's action is extra-Constitutional, others are of a different mind. Ultimately, it is for the courts to make the determination, and they have taken up the case. So what is the beef. If it is determined that the program is not properly authorized, it will not go forward. It has been suspended at this point. Should the courts decide that the President acted within his authority, then those who simply disagree with that policy have no justification for putting us all at risk by shutting down Homeland Security just because they don't like the policy.
15
If the republicans in congress think that Obama's executive orders are a constitutional issue then they should take it to the courts. The reason that they won't do this is because they know he's within his constitutional authority to issue the orders which simply prioritize scarce resources. Since I live near the border I worry a lot more about the bad apples in the largely Hispanic illegal aliens out here than I do about the gardeners who work and pay taxes. Since there's no practical way to deport 11 million people short of creating concentration camps what Obama did makes sense. Do the math yourselves - 11 million apprehended at a rate of 1000 per day takes 11000 days to get all of them out of the country - that's 30 years - and assumes that there is no further inflow.
7
republicans once again do government by blackmail. tying together two unrelated issues to make a political point. if the republicans care more about their dislike of Hispanic people over the security of the nation then THEY will force a worse case situation just as they have time and time again. they were obstructionists when in the minority and remain that as a majority. They don't have an agenda to move the country forward just petty arguments based on personal dislikes absent objective or real perspective.
7
Please shut it down! Then no one will deny that Republicans are just bad at government.
4
That's what was expressed the last time... and look who took over congress.
1
It is hard not to wince at the idiocy and immorality of this current crop of politicians then I remember the old saying: "in a democracy people get the government they deserve..."
If a significant majority are unmotivated to vote in mid-term elections then this is what you get. How much more needs to be done to get people off their butts to go vote...it is only one day per year!
If a significant majority are unmotivated to vote in mid-term elections then this is what you get. How much more needs to be done to get people off their butts to go vote...it is only one day per year!
8
"But Citizenship and Immigration Services — the part of the department that would carry out Mr. Obama’s executive actions — would remain largely untouched, because it is funded through application fees. "
So the GoP is willing to shut down the DHS but the President's exec orders will still be carried out. They lose either way. What message are the Republicans trying to send? It does not seem to me that they actually care about the security of the country despite their claims to the contrary.
So the GoP is willing to shut down the DHS but the President's exec orders will still be carried out. They lose either way. What message are the Republicans trying to send? It does not seem to me that they actually care about the security of the country despite their claims to the contrary.
13
So it's back to normal business, eh? We are taking note. And we are tired of your shenanigans and ready to vote again. Message to both Rs and Ds: Please, please do the job we elected you to do. Or donate your entire salary to charity. STOP roadblocking and posturing. Make compromises. Do it now.
3
What makes you think they are NOT doing the job they were elected to do?
2
I just let my Congressman know that I'm watching how he votes on this. I travel quite a bit, domestically and overseas. If I find myself in longer than usual lines at the airport TSA security lines in the next week or so, and find he voted to shut down Homeland Security, I'll remember come the next election.
6
Let's Fire Congress!
What if Americans refused to vote for all incumbent Congressman and Senators in the next election?
Why reward a Congress that can't lead our nation and solve basic issues?
Let's start over with a new Congress as this one is broken!
What if Americans refused to vote for all incumbent Congressman and Senators in the next election?
Why reward a Congress that can't lead our nation and solve basic issues?
Let's start over with a new Congress as this one is broken!
8
Republicans proposed cutting Homeland Security to block Obama's immigration reform. The bill was introduced before the Texas judge imposed an injunction which carried out just what the Republicans wanted. So this bill no longer serves its state purpose. Passing it would serve virtually no purpose. If it passes, it will be confirmation that the insane are running the asylum.
10
Boehner is a disgrace to his office. How ironic if Homeland Security can't even protect Netanyahu when he visits Congress without the VP and President involved.
OK, I exaggerate, but hey: the party that wanted to prove they could govern has sure gotten off to a great start. By holding funding HS or any agency hostage to Republicans anger over immigration, these clowns are showing callous disregard for the Constitution they profess to be "saving."
How laughable. The Presidential Executive Order--now on hold while the courts duke it out--is being adjudicated by the judiciary, as it should. Congress is making a huge show of defunding the one part of Homeland Security (Immigration Services) that doesn't even need funding from them--being self-funded by application fees. In any event, the issue is moot while the courts deal with the legality of this EO.
Trying to pin this on the Democrats is as laughable as Boehner's claim to be saving the Constitution. Give it a rest, Mr. Boehner. And do the job you are being paid to do and rewrite your law to provide clean funding without extraneous, politically motivated defunding exceptions.
OK, I exaggerate, but hey: the party that wanted to prove they could govern has sure gotten off to a great start. By holding funding HS or any agency hostage to Republicans anger over immigration, these clowns are showing callous disregard for the Constitution they profess to be "saving."
How laughable. The Presidential Executive Order--now on hold while the courts duke it out--is being adjudicated by the judiciary, as it should. Congress is making a huge show of defunding the one part of Homeland Security (Immigration Services) that doesn't even need funding from them--being self-funded by application fees. In any event, the issue is moot while the courts deal with the legality of this EO.
Trying to pin this on the Democrats is as laughable as Boehner's claim to be saving the Constitution. Give it a rest, Mr. Boehner. And do the job you are being paid to do and rewrite your law to provide clean funding without extraneous, politically motivated defunding exceptions.
23
And deal with immigration while you're at it, Mr Speaker.
1
Back in th USSR, "We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us." You'll get pretty good security this way.
1
Imagine what the Republican reaction would be if Democratic political shenanigans were threatening a shutdown, or even partial shutdown, of the DHS? You can just hear it. Loud, hysterical accusations that disloyal "socialists" who did not really love their country ands were playing footsie with terrorists were recklessly endangering the homeland, and on and on. As it is, Democrats are staying fairly calm and composed, which tells you a lot about the differences between the parties. Or maybe how accustomed we've become to GOP shenanigans.
10
Maybe Homeland Security (always sounds so Nazi-like to me) and the Pentagon can hold bake sales? Maybe their suppliers will make special box top offers on cereal packages to raise money? You know, the way education and social services do. Its about time the truly bloated agencies have to put up with the same "stuff" the human services ones get.
Cry me a river. Any day without Homeland Security listening to my conversations, following me with cameras, and going through my luggage or seeing my person on their screening device is a good day to me.
Cry me a river. Any day without Homeland Security listening to my conversations, following me with cameras, and going through my luggage or seeing my person on their screening device is a good day to me.
5
the DHS didnt exist until bush/cheney created it. It is an umbrella organization that pays a lot of people big bucks to create another layer of bureaucracy. So i say get rid of it altogether. The best result would be to not spend it anywhere else and lower the deficit. However, if money were needed for protection of this country - give it to the agents on the ground who are in the trenches instead of a bloated bureaucracy. Btw I know someone who was originally transferred into DHS and resigned when he saw all the wasted spending and getting nothing done as people talked inside their bubble!
3
I hope we notice why it's important that Heritage Foundation hosted conservative's meeting. Heritage was founded and is funded by libertarian and conservative elites who are paying to ensure republicans pass their personal tax and regulation agenda. Yes, they wrap the rhetoric in the flag and complain about the constitution - but if you unwrap it you find nothing but the donors agenda being passed by our congressman - as purchased.
I am 100% sure that is NOT what the Founders envisioned.
I am 100% sure that is NOT what the Founders envisioned.
25
DHS was an a massive and unnecessary bureaucracy that was set up in the wake of 9/11. It should be shut. The fact that the Republicans will be vilified for allowing it, is just a bonus.
15
Read the story. 85% of DHS will be coming to work. At any given time there must be at least 15% of employees on vacation or sick. No problem. Cancel vacations during dispute. that is how the real World operates.
You know who really suffers during these shutdowns? The private contractors working for the govt. They will not be paid. The govt workers will be, even if it is a little late....
3
Another day at the office for the drama queens in Washington.
They are the most pathetic and inept group of people I have ever seen and that's both parties.
They are the most pathetic and inept group of people I have ever seen and that's both parties.
6
DHS should be shutdown and it should never have been created. The notion that we created a Department of "Homeland" smells of a jingoism we cannot shake and one the Bush administration embraced on behalf of both corporations like Haliburton & Blackwater and for votes. Lest you forget the two wars under false pretense, the various 'color' alerts, some of which coincided nicely with various political difficulties Bush faced.
Fear is now the coin of the realm - the more you foment the more you get - just look at our 'Homelands' timely warnings to 'be careful in shopping malls' this past week or the series of bank bailouts without reform to consolidation or the derivatives market (we're now much less safe in the area of Wall Street collapse). And, don't forget the multiple NSA programs, legality be damned, designed to spy on Americans...more fear mongering.
The DHS is merely an agency born of our irrational fears and our Machiavellian worst. It should be absorbed by the Departments health, security, intelligence, defense, etc. and any of the cost-savings that might be realized should be spent on infrastructure and education because the clear threat to this nation is from within via bridges that crumble, energy that relies on fossil fuels, and a populace living in inequality and unable to educate themselves because it's now too expensive to learn. Will that happen? It's safe to assume the answer to that is clearly 'no chance'.
Fear is now the coin of the realm - the more you foment the more you get - just look at our 'Homelands' timely warnings to 'be careful in shopping malls' this past week or the series of bank bailouts without reform to consolidation or the derivatives market (we're now much less safe in the area of Wall Street collapse). And, don't forget the multiple NSA programs, legality be damned, designed to spy on Americans...more fear mongering.
The DHS is merely an agency born of our irrational fears and our Machiavellian worst. It should be absorbed by the Departments health, security, intelligence, defense, etc. and any of the cost-savings that might be realized should be spent on infrastructure and education because the clear threat to this nation is from within via bridges that crumble, energy that relies on fossil fuels, and a populace living in inequality and unable to educate themselves because it's now too expensive to learn. Will that happen? It's safe to assume the answer to that is clearly 'no chance'.
16
Yes, yes, DHS is a gigantic monster agency that never should have come into being as such. But its component functions, such as border security and air travel security and so forth are inarguably important, whether they are part of a huge DHS or distributed around to other agencies and departments (and I agree that they should be). The answer is not an abrupt shutdown, with all its attendant disruptions of the component functions, but Congressional action to break up DHS and reassign its functions within other, more manageable department.
But with this Congress, any kind of intelligent, comprehensive action that involves responsible governance is well nigh impossible, so the next best alternative is a clean DHS funding bill without policy demands (that wouldn't pass an honest House-Senate conference vote as standalone measures) being slipped in as poison pills. The year-end cromnibus bill was a governmental atrocity, and the GOP is addicted to such dirty tricks.
But with this Congress, any kind of intelligent, comprehensive action that involves responsible governance is well nigh impossible, so the next best alternative is a clean DHS funding bill without policy demands (that wouldn't pass an honest House-Senate conference vote as standalone measures) being slipped in as poison pills. The year-end cromnibus bill was a governmental atrocity, and the GOP is addicted to such dirty tricks.
I like the idea of clean bills, both sides should get on that bandwagon. The sophomoric, even juvenile business of adding things to bills that have nothing to do with those bills is emblematic of how our congress works, and indicative of the worst aspects of human nature. That this, arguably the most important deliberative body in the world, would operate on the basis of schoolyard bullies (who are all cowards) is an invitation to international contempt and derision, and deservedly so.
Homeland security is important, vital even, but the department is a bureaucratic minefield whose segments operate at cross purposes frequently. It consumes vast resources that could be used better elsewhere. The classification of some folks as essential and forcing them to work without pay is about as un-American as you can get. The loss of the others will make their jobs even more difficult, so we can count on mistakes being made, things falling through ever widening cracks, and ultimately, some people getting hurt.
Since perception is everything, regardless of the underlying intricacies, the GOP will shoulder the blame for the damage, everyone knows it's their modus operandi to shut down the gov't. at the slightest "provocation", while they spend nearly all their time looking for those provocations. Our collective experience of previous shutdowns will compound this onus and make them look even worse for it. Maybe McConnell and Boehner will grab rifles and stand posts on the wall, without pay
Homeland security is important, vital even, but the department is a bureaucratic minefield whose segments operate at cross purposes frequently. It consumes vast resources that could be used better elsewhere. The classification of some folks as essential and forcing them to work without pay is about as un-American as you can get. The loss of the others will make their jobs even more difficult, so we can count on mistakes being made, things falling through ever widening cracks, and ultimately, some people getting hurt.
Since perception is everything, regardless of the underlying intricacies, the GOP will shoulder the blame for the damage, everyone knows it's their modus operandi to shut down the gov't. at the slightest "provocation", while they spend nearly all their time looking for those provocations. Our collective experience of previous shutdowns will compound this onus and make them look even worse for it. Maybe McConnell and Boehner will grab rifles and stand posts on the wall, without pay
6
Shutting down the Department of Homeland Security is pure "Alice in Wonderland" where the Republican Party of "law and order" is once again the party of shutdowns and now becomes the Party of No Law and Disorder. But, until the voters punish them for their continued inability to fulfill their prime mandate "to protect" them, they will continue on with their pathetic political shenanigans. Let just hope that this ill-considered, ideological tantrum to block the already prevented executive action on immigration reform doesn't encourage an ISIS-motivated attack here at home. That's a risk that any sane politician should be unwilling to take. Unfortunately, ideology and political payback seem to lead to irrational actions that endanger the public welfare.
1
So the GOP is going to cause a government shutdown - in the security area, no less - and further alienate the fastest growing voting bloc in the country. Way to go, Republicans. I see you really have an eye to the future.
8
National security and national defense has been at the forefront of our country's policy-making since its inception. That the United States needs a Department of Homeland Security, a 21st century creation in response to September 11th, is absurd. Evidently, a Department of Defense that includes not only the armed forces but the National Security Agency -- not to be confused with the Department of Homeland Security -- isn't enough. Neither is the CIA. Neither is the FBI. Neither is the State Department. The Department of Homeland security is nothing more than agency sprawl. I'm glad Congress is tightening the purse strings, which, in this case, is nothing more than an exercise of the balance of powers between the Legislative and Executive branches. The legislature was foolish to authorize the department's creation in the first place.
7
Shut it down. The voters deserve it. They were the ones who put Boehner and company into the office.
4
Gee, you would think Republicans don't love America.
15
The Problem: DHS is threatened with a shutdown by withdrawal of, or lack of funding from Congress.
The Solution: Threaten the country with fear-mongering terrorist attacks upon the Homeland®.
The Potential Target: Head of DHS, Jeh Johnson warned Congress of new terrorist threats in the country following a call by Somalia's al-Qaeda-linked al-Shabab terror group to target Western malls.
Yikes! Our Malls!!
Now that's what I call a clear and present danger!
I'm warning you, al-Shabab, if you go after that sacred bastion of public consumption you brook angering 100 million armed Americans (thank God for the 2nd amendment!) who will rally behind trees and shrubbery and wait until they see the whites of your eyes. Or your burkas.
Our Malls - attacked! Oi veh! The repercussions upon our GDP would be staggering. (70% GDP = shopping).
Johnson reiterated on CNN, no less: "he advised people going to the Mall of America in Minnesota, which is one of the world's largest shopping centers, to be particularly careful." "I'm not telling people to not go to the mall," he then said Sunday on NBC's Meet The Press. "I think that there needs to be an awareness."
Go armed, maybe?
Yeah. Consumer awareness…that's what we are told drives Brands and helps ROI in business and advertising. So I guess it's a good thing.
But really, this is the new threat to the public? Attack of al-Shabab (not a new barbeque specialty, btw) on the Malls? No wonder a member of Congress guffawed out loud.
The Solution: Threaten the country with fear-mongering terrorist attacks upon the Homeland®.
The Potential Target: Head of DHS, Jeh Johnson warned Congress of new terrorist threats in the country following a call by Somalia's al-Qaeda-linked al-Shabab terror group to target Western malls.
Yikes! Our Malls!!
Now that's what I call a clear and present danger!
I'm warning you, al-Shabab, if you go after that sacred bastion of public consumption you brook angering 100 million armed Americans (thank God for the 2nd amendment!) who will rally behind trees and shrubbery and wait until they see the whites of your eyes. Or your burkas.
Our Malls - attacked! Oi veh! The repercussions upon our GDP would be staggering. (70% GDP = shopping).
Johnson reiterated on CNN, no less: "he advised people going to the Mall of America in Minnesota, which is one of the world's largest shopping centers, to be particularly careful." "I'm not telling people to not go to the mall," he then said Sunday on NBC's Meet The Press. "I think that there needs to be an awareness."
Go armed, maybe?
Yeah. Consumer awareness…that's what we are told drives Brands and helps ROI in business and advertising. So I guess it's a good thing.
But really, this is the new threat to the public? Attack of al-Shabab (not a new barbeque specialty, btw) on the Malls? No wonder a member of Congress guffawed out loud.
2
Bread and Circuses.
Isn't that what brought down Rome?
Isn't that what brought down Rome?
6
The Department of Homeland Security is an excellent example of what President Reagan warned us about: an ever-expanding, self-serving, turf protecting, inefficient bureaucracy, whose prime activity is creating reasons for increased mission and budget.
There is no doubt that 15% of its workforce could be lopped off with no decrease of our security. However, I expect that, should push come to shove, its executives will furlough precisely those men and women about whose absence its public relations people can most easily scare Americans.
Rhetoric about budgets and security notwithstanding, what neither Republicans nor Democrats seem to have any inclination to do is examine the Department of Homeland Security itself to see what, after a dozen years of financial and mission expansion, should be its proper role.
There is no doubt that 15% of its workforce could be lopped off with no decrease of our security. However, I expect that, should push come to shove, its executives will furlough precisely those men and women about whose absence its public relations people can most easily scare Americans.
Rhetoric about budgets and security notwithstanding, what neither Republicans nor Democrats seem to have any inclination to do is examine the Department of Homeland Security itself to see what, after a dozen years of financial and mission expansion, should be its proper role.
59
"There is no doubt that 15% of its workforce could be lopped off with no decrease of our security". Is there any doubt that, say, cutting 20%, 40% or 90% will not do the same? Can you please be a little more specific, in terms of logical argument, on how you came to 15% instead of any of these other numbers?
1
"There is no doubt that 15% of its workforce could be lopped off with no decrease of our security."
Sure, no problem... Just try telling people they should allow an hour and a half to get through airport security on their next flight.
Sure, no problem... Just try telling people they should allow an hour and a half to get through airport security on their next flight.
3
As did Eisenhower well before Ronnie.
1
Has shutting the government down ever worked out for Republicans? It continues to astound me the unbalanced vision conservatives fight for, which is so antithetical to so many, yet nonetheless earn votes from the very people they do a disservice to.
Wake up, people.
Wake up, people.
156
Errrr... It has helped give them a majority in both houses from the last time.
3
@Carl
Do the results of American elections really represent the desires of the American people?
I wager they do not.
1. Campaign finance laws, large companies, and lobbyists dictate who the candidates are and how hard they are pushed through the various media channels.
2. Most voters consciously vote for the lesser of the two corporate-sponsored evils.
3. Politicians constantly redraw political boundaries and play with voter laws and polling locations to favor their party.
4. Popular vote winning candidate can lose because of electoral college structure. (This country would be completely different now had Gore become president over Bush in 2000 when Gore won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote.)
5. Voter turnout hovers around 50% in presidential elections (less in non-presidential elections). Half the country doesn't vote. Heck, even random bad weather can skew results.
6. Political power & corruption is always a factor. (The deciding factor in that 2000 election was a voting recount in the state ran by the popular vote-losing candidate's brother. Can't say that's not shady.)
I get your point, but there are so many other factors beyond policy dictating the outcome of elections. The causation is not there (for Republicans now or Democrats before).
Do the results of American elections really represent the desires of the American people?
I wager they do not.
1. Campaign finance laws, large companies, and lobbyists dictate who the candidates are and how hard they are pushed through the various media channels.
2. Most voters consciously vote for the lesser of the two corporate-sponsored evils.
3. Politicians constantly redraw political boundaries and play with voter laws and polling locations to favor their party.
4. Popular vote winning candidate can lose because of electoral college structure. (This country would be completely different now had Gore become president over Bush in 2000 when Gore won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote.)
5. Voter turnout hovers around 50% in presidential elections (less in non-presidential elections). Half the country doesn't vote. Heck, even random bad weather can skew results.
6. Political power & corruption is always a factor. (The deciding factor in that 2000 election was a voting recount in the state ran by the popular vote-losing candidate's brother. Can't say that's not shady.)
I get your point, but there are so many other factors beyond policy dictating the outcome of elections. The causation is not there (for Republicans now or Democrats before).
3
Will, I know what you mean: the fact that the proudly open big-business/wealthy-come-first Republican vision is supported by so many decidedly non-business/non-wealthy voters has always troubled me too. I often ask Republican-embracing family, "how can you so consistently support politicians and policies designed to serve a financial elite at your expense?" I think it comes down to two things: (1) a general lack of brain power and critical thinking on the part of so many GOP voters, together with (2) the resistance to progress and change that come with that lack of brain power. Nonetheless, those votes would not be controlling almost 70% of all state legislative bodies, most Governors, and almost 60% of the US House and Senate if...we could find a way to engage and energize Progressive and other Democratic voters. When we are inspired, we turn out and we win and we push change and progress ahead in small increments. When we are not inspired, we do not have the commitment or discipline to turn out anyway. And the subject of this story (as well as another story in NYT today about conservative state politicians pre-emptively overriding local progress) is what we get as a result.
Let it shut down, this is a knee jerk department created in haste and has proved to be no more than a money pit. The southern border is wide open and accountability is next to none at all. I do not think anyone other than the employees would even notice it was gone.
16
"The southern border is wide open and accountability is next to none at all."
I'n not surprised that such reckless hyperbole is bracketed by statements of a cynical indifference to functional government
I'n not surprised that such reckless hyperbole is bracketed by statements of a cynical indifference to functional government
And the 114th Congress has hit the ground running! This must be how John Boehner keeps his words about threatening to "act;" the Republican-majority Congress would rather let Federal agencies suffer, and citizens go without an important division operating, than pass their own legislation or let President Obama's course stand.
4
Are you really telling me they can't function for a week if one in seven employees is not there ?
just not buying that (and I'm a liberal)
just not buying that (and I'm a liberal)
7
And the other six aren't getting paid for their work. It does make a difference.
Please, Please, please shut the TSA down. Before Thursday, preferably. I´m going to travel in the US again and can´t stand being rubbed down by these completely incompetent persons.
11
I see all of this as due to the narrative that President Obama is an "other"--he's not one of us, different, unruly and not deserving of respectful negotiations. If your starting premise is that the president is unpatriotic, not in love with the country in healthy/robust manner, failing to preach the gospel of exceptionalism, perhaps foreign born, not sufficiently Christian, too ghetto, too Chicago, too international, just too different....then it logically follows that the only way to deal with him and all he touches is through obstruction and unyielding resistance. The GOP views our president as a nonrational player, unworthy of serious negotiations, who deserves only containment and contempt. From this crazy perspective, it makes sense to use drastic strategies like holding the country hostage in order to block the president from exercising authority. Never mind the economic, domestic and foreign policy successes of this administration--to the GOP the president is a beast who must be brought to heel. And now, once again, the country will suffer at the hands of the Republican Party.
15
The members of congress are the one that should be made to work without pay until the bill is passed and while were at it, they need to have their assets frozen also. That way, it would give them the incentive to do their jobs.
6
If one is not getting paid why would they show up for work? No paycheck no work. If the TSA or other "essential" employees show up and don't get paid it sets the stage for further abuse of those employees. Don't work for free. The bosses don't and neither should you.
4
By law, the must show up or risk losing their jobs (once the pay is back in the hopper).... Makes it pretty easy for congress.... after all, they are all Government workers at the teat of our democracy (that's sarcasm by the way).
The bosses, up to and including the DHS secretary don't get paid during during a shutdown - or rather they don't get paid until after the shutdown ends. It is the employees that don't have to work but get paid after the shutdown who are getting the benefit of the shutdown. The bosses are considered so they do have to work.
Wow! Getting paid (eventually) for sitting at home. Is this a great country or not!
1
Whoever said "It's not important that I win, but that you fail!" must have been speaking for the Republican Party. Thanks to their efforts our nation is well on its way to becoming a failed democracy. If they don't want to help govern, perhaps the voters will find someone who will.
6
Primarily, Homeland is an organization for the sale of fear. It was developed to help the public believe that TSA and the like "protected" us. That protection took some 50,000+ people off of the Unemploymed rolls and wasted millions if not billions of travelers man-hours. It has cost far more than paying for their unemployment. The CIA and all of the "intelligence" agencies bloated up right along with the Homeland.
It's another piece of oversize Washingtonian junk. Scrap it. Reorganize its really valued elements to make them efficient and let Jeh go get an honest job.
It's another piece of oversize Washingtonian junk. Scrap it. Reorganize its really valued elements to make them efficient and let Jeh go get an honest job.
12
Interesting.
So why haven't Republicans been actively campaigning to dissolve DHS for the past 10 years, then? How very convenient that it becomes a prime example of government pork now that the GOP has painted themselves into a corner over it.
So why haven't Republicans been actively campaigning to dissolve DHS for the past 10 years, then? How very convenient that it becomes a prime example of government pork now that the GOP has painted themselves into a corner over it.
3
"Reorganize its really valued elements to make them efficient ". Can you please be a little more specific?
1
If the Republicans allow funding for the Department of Homeland Security to lapse, then it will be clear to all that it is the Republicans who do not love America. They would risk the security of our nation to make a political point about the constitutionality of the President's Executive actions, an issue that will appropriately be decided by the judicial branch of our government.
If anyone gets harmed because DHS closes down, the Republicans will be viewed as a very unpatriotic party because they put party interests above the security our our country and its citizens.
If anyone gets harmed because DHS closes down, the Republicans will be viewed as a very unpatriotic party because they put party interests above the security our our country and its citizens.
14
Good riddance.
5
"The House speaker, John A. Boehner, has signaled that he is prepared to let financing for the agency lapse if the Senate remains unable to pass the spending bill that the House sent over last month. "
You go John-boy. Shut down Homeland Sec. Walk that plank.
You go John-boy. Shut down Homeland Sec. Walk that plank.
5
Very stupid politically for the Republicans... they don't yet realize they are the party in power. They still think of themselves as the "out" party. However, if we could get rid of all right wing military and intelligence gathering on American citizens, especially the NSA, then I would accept defunding DOS. These organizations are such predatory weeds growing in our garden.
2
What's "unfair" Mr. Johnson, is the memo you co-authored giving DAPA applicants Social Security and Medicare benefits when they reach age 62. l .What's unfair, Mr. Johnson, is that all of these illegal aliens would be able to apply for EITC, and Child Income Benefits, going back 3 years, hich could amount to approximately $5,000/family, at the least. All, at the U.S. taxpayer's expense. Obama, the Democrats and Johnson, the ball is in your court. Congress has passed the bill, which reflects the will of the American voters..
5
No they didn't. It's not the will of the America voters. It's all political games at our expense
I've had relatives in Russia work without getting paid on time. I thought this was the sort of thing that could never happen in the United States of America. After all, if a company cannot make payroll, some labor attorney will turn up and force the company into bankruptcy. This analysis ignores, of course, that government is not a business and, more importantly, that Republicans are bankrupt.
98
Unpaid time has happened each time the Republicans shut down the government, so it is not new. What seems to be new is that people are noticing. I take it the GOP has made it a talking point to try to force their policies on us. Otherwise, it would not be an issue.
1
You make a good point - with a gigantic and ever-expanding federal government, things start to look a lot like Russia.
Russia? Not so much yet. I would vote for Germany in the late '20s when it became so filled with reactionaries. If "Homeland Security" doesn't have that Nazi ring, what does?
This President and his largely Democratic enablers don't want to admit that they are just as culpable for this predicament. They exacerbated a refugee crisis, conflated legal and illegal immigration and aren't being honest about the much bigger than reported cost of their policies to the states and localities for the huge influx of illegal immigrants. And now the only action is a showdown. This was a created crisis that was stoked by the Obama Administration for political gain.
The Republicans can't formulate a coherent policy to counteract the Democratic spin because the establishment Republicans really want people to come over the border for cheap labor, and the stresses of illegal immigration giving additional reasons for dismantling safety net policies they hate.
In the meantime, those immigrants that arrive legally, and our fellow citizens get the short end of the stick, getting less funding for important citizen needs (VA, Infrastructure, etc.). What galls me most is that they are fighting about a policy that does have possible solutions that aren't deportation and aren't citizenship.
This President has made it clear to me that the timing and his actions regarding immigration are completely motivated by political gain, and are NOT in the best interests of the US or it's citizens. It might be ugly but I support calling his bluff and close the DHS down.
The Republicans can't formulate a coherent policy to counteract the Democratic spin because the establishment Republicans really want people to come over the border for cheap labor, and the stresses of illegal immigration giving additional reasons for dismantling safety net policies they hate.
In the meantime, those immigrants that arrive legally, and our fellow citizens get the short end of the stick, getting less funding for important citizen needs (VA, Infrastructure, etc.). What galls me most is that they are fighting about a policy that does have possible solutions that aren't deportation and aren't citizenship.
This President has made it clear to me that the timing and his actions regarding immigration are completely motivated by political gain, and are NOT in the best interests of the US or it's citizens. It might be ugly but I support calling his bluff and close the DHS down.
41
Utter nonsense. There is a legal means to challenge the President on his immigration policies. Court action has already begun. Let the matter move through the courts. Shutting down this department is 100% political brinksmanship.
5
cheap labor = support from US Chamber of Commerce among other business interests. Hence the flow must continue.
2
Political gain? The man is a lame-duck president -- what has he to gain? It's his last two years in office. He feels that compassion for hispanic immigrants is necessary. His timing - for me is a bit late - but most welcome.
2
"But he acknowledged that it was 'an uncomfortable position to be in, to have to choose between border security and the Constitution.'”
Can we all agree that whenever someone mentions the "Constitution" or "Founding Fathers" it means they don't have any real practical arguments to make?
Can we all agree that whenever someone mentions the "Constitution" or "Founding Fathers" it means they don't have any real practical arguments to make?
402
I will certainly agree with that statement.
2
It also means that have no real regard for the Constitution. They haul that carnard out when they hope it will serve their interest. If it doesn't, they are more than willing to toss it under the bus.
4
I would venture to say that very, very many of these same people mentioning the Constitution have never even read it. Instead, they prefer to bloviate about and hold it forth as a sacred text, while at the same time, having no idea what it says.
I should think that America would be better off if all bills were "clean bills" so we the public knew what congress ( small "c" intentional) is actually voting on, attaching and slipping between our ribs. THAT to me is the discussion here. Don't obfuscate, don't delay, don't confuse. Tell me the facts of every issue, on its merits. I will then make a more informed decisions on my votes.
8
Absolutely, JFrederick, else it's blackmail to get through bills and pork that wouldn't stand on their own.
The Republican Party once again offers government by extortion as their guiding light.
Instead of offering a comprehensive policy on any subject, the GOP simply negotiates by blackmail.
They've done it with tax policy, healthcare policy and now threaten us with immigration policy.
Nihilism You Can Believe In; GOP 2015
Party First and Country Last - what a fine bunch of Know Nothing patriots.
Instead of offering a comprehensive policy on any subject, the GOP simply negotiates by blackmail.
They've done it with tax policy, healthcare policy and now threaten us with immigration policy.
Nihilism You Can Believe In; GOP 2015
Party First and Country Last - what a fine bunch of Know Nothing patriots.
156
So the Republicans are so upset about the immigration issue they are about to shut down border security. Not rocket scientists, are they?
25
Since 'border security' is a joke and so is the TSA, it's not much of shut-down is it? The sooner the TSA goes the better. What a waste of money and time.
2
Republicans are always the first to point out that they're not scientists...
Leadership dictates that if 200,000 are expected to work without being paid, so too should the leadership not collect their salary. Anything less ranges towards extortionary politics and labor abuse.
11
I'm guessing the funds to continue the vast and illegal domestic spying that goes on daily will not be affected.
Imagine the hundreds of millions in hidden accounts and secret funds the NSA and CIA must have at their disposal.
Imagine the hundreds of millions in hidden accounts and secret funds the NSA and CIA must have at their disposal.
6
Shut down Congress. Furlough the whole worthless lot.
18
Don'cha just love the political party of Palin, McCain, Graham, Cruz and Rubio govern in the country. Think what it will be like for 80% of us if they also get the Presidency. Privation at home and war abroad.
4
It is insane to think that at a time of increased threats to the United States via cyber-attacks, threats on shopping malls, and the constant concern of homegrown terrorist, that our government would actually consider shutting down Homeland Security. Every crazy in the US and around the world will be waiting and planning to attack us when our defenses are down. We elected these people to work together to make decisions that will benefit all of us and most importantly keep us safe. Bickering along party lines need to end. They need to work together to work this out and not be so nonchalant about letting the funding run out. God help us all.
68
The House Republicans have been playing chicken with the national finances for so long they believe it is their right to do so, and the Democrats, who tend to care a bit more about actual governance and the welfare of the country, will have to cave in yet again. Our spoiled brats are holding their breath again.
The GOP is like the woman in the tale of Solomon who was willing to have the baby divided in half because it really wasn't hers.
The GOP is like the woman in the tale of Solomon who was willing to have the baby divided in half because it really wasn't hers.
1
It is not along "party lines." Therre is NO equivalency here. One party, the Republicans, are sabotaging the DHS because they want to punish the president and the immigrants whom he wants to be treated properly and humanely. Anything that sabotages the workings of government is a good thing to the Republican leadership. It's pathetic -- and dangerous. The Republicans are the biggest danger to our democracy. Forget their disrespect for the president. The people vote these irresponsible fools in deserve what they get -- but the rest of us don't.
2
Perhaps all members of Congress should be armed and posted at the Mall of America and other threatened venues until they stop playing games with national security. Don't they realize that the President's action on immigration. constitutional or not, has been thwarted by that judge's ruling in Brownsville...and is likely to be tied up for months in the court?
78
Better idea is that they get no paychecks unless and until they balance the budget. Beats the tar out of term limits!
2
Yes, the court case. But, that does not matter, as the GOP agenda is red meat.
Just once, I'd like them work without pay during a shutdown.
To ask people to work without pay should be illegal. It is at least immoral.
How can they pay their bills? Many TSA workers don't make much to begin wtih. If they have to leave for other jobs, you have training and hiring costs for new people. Republicans are just not making financial sense. They never seem to common sense either.
How can they pay their bills? Many TSA workers don't make much to begin wtih. If they have to leave for other jobs, you have training and hiring costs for new people. Republicans are just not making financial sense. They never seem to common sense either.
205
Democrats are blocking the funding, not Republicans.
5
Those TSA workers should have thought of that when they cast their votes last November. Now they will have to live with a poorly informed largely bought congress for two years.
2
Nobody is asking them to work without pay and surely they will get any back pay. The Dems are insisting on their way or the highway as usual.
"But he acknowledged that it was 'an uncomfortable position to be in, to have to choose between border security and the constitution'"
Oh, so now they decide that the constitution is under threat. It's not like the "Patriot" Act didn't already kill parts of it (4th Amendment). That's some great misdirection right there - skillful - even. Caters to voters? Check. Saves Face? Check. Deflects blame? Check. Gives a supposedly valid reason to avoid any kind of compromise (that's how representative democracies work)? Bingo.
The Perfect Crime.
Oh, so now they decide that the constitution is under threat. It's not like the "Patriot" Act didn't already kill parts of it (4th Amendment). That's some great misdirection right there - skillful - even. Caters to voters? Check. Saves Face? Check. Deflects blame? Check. Gives a supposedly valid reason to avoid any kind of compromise (that's how representative democracies work)? Bingo.
The Perfect Crime.
6
So the republicans said that now that they have majorities in both branches of congress they would show that they can govern.... Scary isn't it? ...no really scary!!!
14
This is ridiculous. The Republican lawmakers don't care about their constituents - only themselves. They are a bunch of spoiled brats - throwing tantrums because they aren't getting what they want. I hope this move backfires big time. Innocent government workers are going to suffer as a result - but who cares? Not the Republicans. They need to grow up and start acting like the adults they supposedly are.
4
with warning signs all over that somebody would love to blow up a mall or an airport, congress decides to defund dhs.
8
Here we go again. The patriotic Rs showing us their true patriotism.
Mr. Boehner, if anything, and I mean anything happens while you all try the latest version of your antics
A. Don't even try to blame Obama and the Ds
B. don't even think we will not hold you and your fellow Rs responsible.
C. Don't you all realize that w this information available across the globe that this might encourage our true enemies to try and capitalize on our R induced vulnerability and attack us?
D. Enough of your obstructionism. Enough!
Get to work! That is what we are paying the lot of you to do.
This is the disgrace, that us schlubs are working till April or May of each year to pay you all to sit there and posture and preen for the benefit of your right wing supporters. And then you all prattle on about a waste of taxpayer dollars.
For shame!
Mr. Boehner, if anything, and I mean anything happens while you all try the latest version of your antics
A. Don't even try to blame Obama and the Ds
B. don't even think we will not hold you and your fellow Rs responsible.
C. Don't you all realize that w this information available across the globe that this might encourage our true enemies to try and capitalize on our R induced vulnerability and attack us?
D. Enough of your obstructionism. Enough!
Get to work! That is what we are paying the lot of you to do.
This is the disgrace, that us schlubs are working till April or May of each year to pay you all to sit there and posture and preen for the benefit of your right wing supporters. And then you all prattle on about a waste of taxpayer dollars.
For shame!
40
The Democrats put the illusionary "rights" of illigal aliens ahead of homeland defense.
7
Any shutdown of any part of the government should be accompanied by a paycheck freeze for members of Congress. We'll see how they like working without pay for a while.
32
Most of them are millionaires so it won't really affect them!
No work, No pay! Maybe we could hire 'illegals' to run congress!
The main concern here is, how does the party that keeps causing Continued government shutdowns keep winning elections ? At some point we have to think; maybe the American voters do want their government to shut down ?
4
You defend the Constitution in the courts, not in spending bills. The Founding Fathers gave us tripartite government to resolve disputes not create them. Increasing the lines and delays for international travelers and causing federal employees to waste their time trying to do their jobs with no funding is government by extortion, expected from organized crime syndicates, not a Party that controls Congress.
28
Does anyone else not care if 15% of the DHS, a bloated, overreaching, and only debatably effective department, gets furloughed?
7
In any negotiation, each side has something they are negotiating for. Democrats are negotiating for a functioning government, Republicans for leverage on a separate issue. So it boils down to what either side is willing to give up. Sadly, Republicans are perfectly willing to give up a functioning government. Then the American public buys the "both sides are to blame" baloney.
15
Obama and the Democrat party are willing to play chicken with homeland security so that Obama's executive order legalizing 5 million illegal aliens and which provides them with social welfare benefits will remain in effect. That's what this is all about. Put to a vote of the American people, illegal aliens would NOT be provided with the same taxpayer funded benefits that Americans receive. And they would be prosecuted and deported for illegally breaking into our country. It's that simple.
7
What did Obama threaten to shut down?
9
No social welfare benefits are included. Keep children, born here with their families and more time to get jobs. It's not amnesty or any giveaway. Facts, not emotions need to rule the day.
1
This is nihilistic, childish behavior on the part of the GOP. They goad themselves into irresponsible actions with their extravagant, abusive vocabulary and, at some point, they will provoke disaster -- but they will evade responsibility should that disaster ever occur, no doubt. Just govern, for pity's sake!
15
If this shutdown goes through and another 9-11 happens during the shutdown, the Republican Party will cease to be a force in American politics for a generation. They are playing with fire.
22
Democrats need to vote for this and quit being the party of no. For 6 years they've hidden behind Harry Reid, now, they can't hide anymore.
The Democrats have fought more for people here illegally than they have for anything else, including helping Americans, poor Americans especially. And, now, they fight for them again at the expense of security, American security.
They are the party of no and it's, finally, coming to light.
Democrats should be ashamed of themselves.
The Democrats have fought more for people here illegally than they have for anything else, including helping Americans, poor Americans especially. And, now, they fight for them again at the expense of security, American security.
They are the party of no and it's, finally, coming to light.
Democrats should be ashamed of themselves.
8
The Democratic-controlled Senate passed an immigration bill years ago that the House GOP rejected just kicking the can down the road, and the President took action where the House would not. Now the House and recently GOP-controlled Senate are blackmailing the nation with the funds cut off. So the Dems are not the ones to blame here. What should happen is a shutdown of all airports and boder crossings on February 28 at midnight.
1
The Congress would like us to believe they are being pro-active about homeland "security" by attaching the immigration provisions to the overall Homeland Security funding bill. As if tearing assimilated families apart, keeping students out of school, and preventing them from paying taxes will protect us from ISIS.
242
If all that is so important, maybe the Dems need to pass the bill offered to them.
It appears that people here illegally are more important to the Democrats blocking the bill than national security is.
It appears that people here illegally are more important to the Democrats blocking the bill than national security is.
3
You mean it doesn't? Tell that to Alabama.
Let's review the bidding; Congress has not funded DHS/INS enough to make mass deportations even possible and now is balking at the idea that the Executive is using their limited funding to not deport 11 million people but rather targeting the persistently criminal and excluding the kids whose parents brought them here as babies.
How does this make any sense?
How does this make any sense?
6
The trouble with majority outrage over GOP shenanigans is that the Republicans don't listen and don't care. They are funded by oligarchs and pitch their nonsense only to the gerrymandered FoxNews faithful. We, the majority, are simply irrelevant to them. This is Reaganism in action and until we the majority take it as seriously as the ditto heads do, even winning the Presidency is rendered meaningless.
116
Lay off 30,000 Homeland Security workers but add 2,500 for Canada's Keystone XL pipeline. That is progress Republican style.
6
Republicans seem to think the populace will be upset if Homeland Security gets shut down. I know that I am not alone in believing the creation of Homeland Security was misguided from the beginning. Shut it down.
41
DHS is an umbrella organization with many very diverse agencies. Many of those agencies are involved in necessary functions of the US government that have absolutely nothing to do with intelligence gathering or counter-terrorism. Some of those include: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Immigration and Naturalization Service, U.S. Coast Guard, Transportation Security Administration, U.S. Secret Service. Just another attempt by Republicans to extract concessions by holding a gun to the head of our country.
4
Even if you are correct this would not be the way. The process would involve a consolidation and phasing out process that takes time. These should be thought out decisions not political blackmail,
1
I'm with Venessa—shut down the super agency that Bush rammed through after 9/11!
Republicans are swept into office as the governing party and their two first actions is to vote to repeal the ACA for the millionth time, and shut down (again) the government. At some point you have to decide that people get the government they deserve.
57
Absolute coercion by the Republican party. It is infuriating. I hope we remember this and do the exact same thing when the tables are turned.
5
It's almost as if the Republicans would rather enable terrorists than Obama.
118
In the twisted minds of many on the right, Obama an the terrorists are the same. (Of course they conveniently forget who actually went after Bin Ladin, as opposed to giving lip service to the "War on Terror.")
2
Please just shut the government down, at least for a couple of months, long enough for people to realize how unnecessary most of it is. The whole edifice is just a bad joke, and is just a faux democracy at best. its military is a hideous contraption that should be mothballed. The only people that like it are those who receive checks from it.
8
Well, you don't have to wait to see what it is like with little government. Just move to Somalia.
8
Now there's an idea.
Let's start by shutting down the Johnson Space Center that employs about 15,000 civil servants and contractors.
Next, we'll move on to the 30 or more US military bases in Texas -- no pay for any civilian employees of those bases.
Maybe we stop paying those federally-funded researchers at every Texas university or think thank?
Let's start by shutting down the Johnson Space Center that employs about 15,000 civil servants and contractors.
Next, we'll move on to the 30 or more US military bases in Texas -- no pay for any civilian employees of those bases.
Maybe we stop paying those federally-funded researchers at every Texas university or think thank?
9
That would be a good start, Fred.
1
If only we, the little people had the power to shut Congress down without pay until they actually, seriously did something for "we the people".
As for John Boehner, I cannot imagine a more reckless act than threatening our national security and holding it hostage to passing a bill that negates an Executive Order. Isn't that extortion? Exactly who doesn't love America?
As for John Boehner, I cannot imagine a more reckless act than threatening our national security and holding it hostage to passing a bill that negates an Executive Order. Isn't that extortion? Exactly who doesn't love America?
123
All politicians claim that they love America more than you do, as they slurp from the public trough.
3
Finally, let it whither on the vine, then dissolve it. It is just a bloated bureaucracy. It only promulgates to the insecurity of people whom do not know the difference between terrorism and political pandering. The boomers are a feckless generation.
18
The very idea that Congress would allow Homeland Security to shut down in order to "defend the Constitution" is completely ludicrous. The Constitution is not under any threat from funding or immigration reform. What is at threat is common sense government. The GOP is willing to play games with this country's security just for the sake of being strong on President Obama. It is a disgrace to the office that they hold, and an insult to the people. I do wonder how these people managed to get elected in the first place.
84
How does Rep. Mulvaney not understand that the remedy for a supposedly unconstitutional executive action is not defunding, it's litigation?
And wouldn't defunding actually protect the President's orders from scrutiny by preventing them from coming into force?
And wouldn't defunding actually protect the President's orders from scrutiny by preventing them from coming into force?
The Republican led House has passed funding. Republucans in the Senate support it. Senate democrats are blocking it because it doesn't fund Obama's amnesty usurpation as well.
39
Wrong! The President's program would be/will be funded by administrative fees, paid by those who apply. It requires no tax payer funds or House appropriations.
20
You are dead wrong. It is not a question of funding. As the article says, "But Citizenship and Immigration Services — the part of the department that would carry out Mr. Obama’s executive actions — would remain largely untouched, because it is funded through application fees."
Typical conservative misinformation!
Typical conservative misinformation!
13
Oh. And there I was thinking that it was the responsibility of the federal courts to determine what legal and what's not. When did the republicans usurp the courts?
4
In the latest edition of elected white men gone mad is this mind twister: the Hous Republicans led by the Speaker are willing to let the Office of Homeland Security run out of money. They seek to strike a blow at the President's executive order to defer persecution for 5 million residents with children w/o citizenship documents which is now suspended by a court order—but blocking the funds would have no effect on the order since the President's program is not funded by House appropriations (or taxpayers!) but by administrative fees!
Defunding Homeland Security has no effect on a program already blocked by a court and not paid for by House funds! The House action will make designated workers stay on their jobs without a paycheck, in order to "teach" the President a lesson and defend the Constitution!
More: 12 million in the US are without citizenship documents. Of these, the House only funds hearings for roughly 900,000 a year. Leave out the 5 million and that leaves a pool of 7 million to draw from, for 900,000 cases annually. At the current rate, it would take eight years to clear the backlog of 7 million—before turning to the 5 million safest, most stable residents, those with American-born children.
Did the constitution call for its defense by damaging the national security? Or is national defense one of the specific acts spelled out as an obligation?
Is the House being unconstitutional?
Defunding Homeland Security has no effect on a program already blocked by a court and not paid for by House funds! The House action will make designated workers stay on their jobs without a paycheck, in order to "teach" the President a lesson and defend the Constitution!
More: 12 million in the US are without citizenship documents. Of these, the House only funds hearings for roughly 900,000 a year. Leave out the 5 million and that leaves a pool of 7 million to draw from, for 900,000 cases annually. At the current rate, it would take eight years to clear the backlog of 7 million—before turning to the 5 million safest, most stable residents, those with American-born children.
Did the constitution call for its defense by damaging the national security? Or is national defense one of the specific acts spelled out as an obligation?
Is the House being unconstitutional?
67
Walt,
The Federal Court has ruled that the President overstepped his authority in changing the rules for immigration. On the other hand the Constutition gives the Congress the power of the purse.
That said in the end Congress will let the courts decide the issue and fund Home land Security as they should.
The Federal Court has ruled that the President overstepped his authority in changing the rules for immigration. On the other hand the Constutition gives the Congress the power of the purse.
That said in the end Congress will let the courts decide the issue and fund Home land Security as they should.
1
No--not unconstitutional. Only stupid. Stupid and disfunctional. Because there are no leaders. None.
2
The GOP can't legislate. All they can do is be a bunch of lawyers and litigate. Where the heck is that immigration bill they were supposed to produce? No where. The GOP are not able to do the job they were hired to do - legislate. The GOP Clown Car is an apt description.
1
Perhaps the real fear of the Homeland Security apparatchiks is that, after a shutdown, people would notice that nothing was significantly different.
117
You can't be serious. Go tell that to the 200,000 employees asked to work without a paycheck!
4
We who work at CBP and HSI know how much revenue we siphon into state and local coffers as the consequence of our adjudicated seizures of narcotics-nexus money, for example...we're talking many millions here that towns like Hammond and Gary, Indiana rely upon to make budget. Yah, you'd notice that something was significantly different if our task force officers don't assist local cops with their interdiction duties and with this vitally needed revenue.
3
Guess we're going to find out if your naive notion is true. If FEMA is gone when an emergency happens, let's see how long it takes for them to get up and running again.
1
Because Democrats stayed home in 2014 after the government shut down the year before, Republicans got a message that said "Dysfunction is popular." They're doubling down figuring it worked last time. If we're ever going to get past dysfunctional politics, Americans, especially Democratic voters, are going to have get engaged and stay engaged.
415
Also if we're ever going to get past dysfunctional politics, people are going to have to stop voting Republican. The GOP is the party of no action, the party that likes to snarl up government, the party that seems bent on America's destruction.
So if people don't want to stop voting GOP because they're anti-abortion or whatever fool thing, then I guess there is another way to get past the dysfunction. America can cease functioning and fall apart at the seams. It happened to Rome, it can certainly happen to us.
So if people don't want to stop voting GOP because they're anti-abortion or whatever fool thing, then I guess there is another way to get past the dysfunction. America can cease functioning and fall apart at the seams. It happened to Rome, it can certainly happen to us.
18
"It happened to Rome, it can certainly happen to us."
Correction: It IS happening to us right now.
Correction: It IS happening to us right now.
6
It already is.
3
The agency that will implement the Executive Orders, USCIS, is funded by user fees. During the last gov't shutdown, it remained open for business. Failing to fund DHS would not shut down USCIS or stop the EO from being implemented - that was left up to a District Court judge.
10
Funny how we can't fund Homeland Security but have no problem dropping bombs on Syria
26
We should not fund homeland security. Maybe we do not need it. Let us see what transpires.
7
Another unilateral decision by Mr. Obama.
2
How many members of Congress will work without pay during the shutdown?
190
Assumes facts not evidence- are any of them essential?
None, they all get payed. Oh, they also get to keep their really great and free health insurance! Now lets vote against Obamacare for the 100th time with no alternatives offered!
2
There is a simple solution. Shut down the airports until Congress does it's job.
104
The FAA isn't part of DHS:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aviation_Administration
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aviation_Administration
1
Why? The TSA is so inefficient and ineffective, why not just run the airports without them? Bring in local police to man the old fashioned metal detectors and keep order in the security lines, and we'll be just as safe as we are with the security theater of the TSA in full force.
2
#Steve. Obviously I mean shut the airports down because without TSA there would be no security. And to answer #DaveN, how many terrorist attacks have we had at airports since 9/11? I'd say that our security at airports must be pretty good. There's much more to it than the "security theater" that you complain about.
1
Remember, some of the current officeholders in Congress do not want to govern, they want to brawl with the POTUS, and I mean an actual brawl. Governing is the absolute last thing they will or even can do, they just are not capable of it.
Who voted for these people anyways?
Who voted for these people anyways?
157
"Who voted for these people anyways?"
Only 36% of eligible voters turned out in 2014 and of those 50%+ voted for our current government. They deserve what they voted for. If that means NO protections, so be it.
Only 36% of eligible voters turned out in 2014 and of those 50%+ voted for our current government. They deserve what they voted for. If that means NO protections, so be it.
3
JPM08--12 % of eligible voters. Not exactly a mandate.
4
We did. The American people voted them in - those who bothered to vote, that is.
Gerrymandering insures that the same Congressmen/women who won an election in a Congressional district will always win subsequent elections. How this voter suppression mechanism gets away with it is extraordinary. Now of course, Citizen's United has brought bought votes to dizzying heights with no ceiling in sight. Both of which nsures rigged voting.
President Obama, a Democrat, is regularly pilloried and insulted by Republicans in every conceivable way, witness the latest, vile diatribe by Giuliani. Yet President Obama has been elected for two terms of office by a clear majority in this country. How to reconcile these result?
At the same time there is now a Republican majority in both Houses determined to do what they do best - continue to insure that the most dysfunctional Congress in history will continue unabated and harmful to this nation. In this case, they are determined to shut down the DHS at time when it is most needed.
We voted for these people.
Gerrymandering insures that the same Congressmen/women who won an election in a Congressional district will always win subsequent elections. How this voter suppression mechanism gets away with it is extraordinary. Now of course, Citizen's United has brought bought votes to dizzying heights with no ceiling in sight. Both of which nsures rigged voting.
President Obama, a Democrat, is regularly pilloried and insulted by Republicans in every conceivable way, witness the latest, vile diatribe by Giuliani. Yet President Obama has been elected for two terms of office by a clear majority in this country. How to reconcile these result?
At the same time there is now a Republican majority in both Houses determined to do what they do best - continue to insure that the most dysfunctional Congress in history will continue unabated and harmful to this nation. In this case, they are determined to shut down the DHS at time when it is most needed.
We voted for these people.
3
So the Republicans are playing politics with our national security. Who really loves or doesn't love America now. A party that puts the collective security of Americans in a position behind their own interests is an unpatriotic party.
403
Takes two to tango: wish those unpatriotic senate democrats would allow a vote.
6
The Republican leader of the Senate can call a vote at anytime.
23
That would be the Dems, they're the ones blocking the funding.
3
America needs to wake up to the anti-democratic actions of the right wing, specifically, it they can't get their way though the legislative or judicial process, they resort to hostage taking. They will justify it with the "defending the constitution" flag waving nonsense, and will predictably blame the president for the chaos and disruption they will leave behind.
287
Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels!
3
Oh come on! This brinksmanship is so utterly stupid and pointless. Stop being juvenile and learn how to govern a country or you won't have a country to govern. .
154
So you are perhaps suggesting that Democrats give in to the Republicans? Let's see--- that means essentially spending hundreds of billions on a police state to go round up millions of people and send them packing via... convoy? Or are you suggesting that maybe Republicans compromise? Really?
Close it down for good and dump the TSA while they are at it.
26
so you're saying that anyone should be able to walk onto an airplane with any weapons they choose, but that there should be no air traffic controllers.
That's Republican-world for you.
That's Republican-world for you.
36
And all those other "bad" things that the government does? Like the Coast Guard?
7
Do you really believe the TSA does anything?
1
This is just another example of the disrespect shown to: American citizens and Gov't workers (coincidentally - also citizens). I hope this isn't an example of the 'love' the GOP has for America.
125
That would be the Dems blocking this. The Reps are ready to pass a bill for funding.
1
Only on their terms with their amendments according to their desires to attack President Obama's policy initiatives. it is not a "clean" bill and you know it. Your statement sounds like it came right off a Fox News broadcast.
17
'Representative Mick Mulvaney, Republican of South Carolina, said at a discussion among conservatives hosted this month by the Heritage Foundation that letting the agency run out of funding was “probably” worth it to defend the Constitution.
But he acknowledged that it was “an uncomfortable position to be in, to have to choose between border security and the Constitution.”'
What is he talking about? Republicans have been choosing security over the Constitution for the past 14 years.
But he acknowledged that it was “an uncomfortable position to be in, to have to choose between border security and the Constitution.”'
What is he talking about? Republicans have been choosing security over the Constitution for the past 14 years.
236
A "shutdown" of DHS is a sham. If 90% of services remain because they're considered vital, then nothing is really being shut down. What should happen is zero funding means just that - everything gets shut down. No Coast Guard rescues, no TSA at the airports, no Border Patrol, Customs checks, etc. if that were the case, neither party would ever not fund DHS. Instead we get theatre of the absurd.
278
You are missing the point. 10% of the employees are being sent home and 90% are being asked to work without pay. I have been through a furlough as a government employee. Operations are anything but normal. People take up other jobs to make ends meet. There will be a tremendous impact
329
But the people providing the 90 percent of services will not be paid. How can they pay their mortgages and other non-discretionary bills?
34
Law Enforcement employees may not receive all of their normal perks like alternative work schedules and maybe their vacation day is cancelled. The biggest complaint by the 90% that have to work is that they actually have to go to work instead of stay home like the other 10% (last time the congress decided to pay all the employees that didn't have to work - retroactively).
3
Government by threat and extortion is not the hallmark of a functioning system.
237
Why so? When was the last time we have seen all branches of government in unison on anything? Same kind of arm twisting is going on between Greece and the EU. The sausage machine is functioning.
1
Is this a great country or what?
So mmpack how many times in the past has a party threatened to shut down all or part of the government in order to pack extraneous measures into a bill?
8
The real fear is that the public would come to believe that much of DHS isn't all that necessary after all - the sky won't fall down. A shutdown might also lead to re-examining whether a super agency is such a good idea.
75
The DHS has already screwed up management of the Secret Service.
2
So what your saying is. that the Bush Administration created an unnecessary agency after 911.........that does nothing.
11
You raise an important point regarding the appropriateness of a "super agency."
I have had qualms about "Homeland Security" -- even the name "Homeland" is a slightly disturbing echo of "Heimat" -- but it does perform vital functions, such as the USCG (which would not be immediately affected by a shut down of the department).
The discussion of how to organize and administer these functions should not, however, be precipitated by the reckless shutdown threatened by Republicans.
I have had qualms about "Homeland Security" -- even the name "Homeland" is a slightly disturbing echo of "Heimat" -- but it does perform vital functions, such as the USCG (which would not be immediately affected by a shut down of the department).
The discussion of how to organize and administer these functions should not, however, be precipitated by the reckless shutdown threatened by Republicans.
5