I am in the minority, but I think if the govt had shut down it would never have reopened. We now have six months to get the republicans to fear losing elections more than they fear trump. Every bad thing in the CR would have happened during a shutdown anyway. I know it was horrible. I know a shutdown is horrible. But I think that the govt would not have reopened if a shut down had happened.
I admit I am probably wrong; a lot of smart people disagree with me. I just wish this level of outrage had been there in Nov so Harris would have won. Too many people chose to ignore all the warnings and stayed home instead of voting. Elections have consequences.
Absolutely correct. I am still dumbfounded that Trump lost re-election by 7 million votes in 2020 and then gets elected again after fomenting an insurrection, denying the verified election result, and being criminally convicted of felonies. And we had a strong economy when this happened. The voters put us (and themselves) in this position. They were amply warned, repeatedly. Let the voters get us out of this.
True, but when you realize that people are immersed in a growing right-wing propaganda bubble, when you add X to the mix, then it is a bit less confusing. This group is being misinformed intentionally.
Then others were young or uninformed or underinformed, and then throw in sexism and racism for some.
He won the by a small percentage and if people showed up in large blue states he would have lost the popular vote.
There was so much swing state emphasis, that large blue state turnout was terrible - especially the youth vote. Young folks did not bother to vote in large numbers like CA and NY.
All true. It came down to 231k votes in MI, PA, and WI, the total he won by in those 3 states. Had just over half of those - or a larger turn out of the indifferent - gone to Harris, we would not be living in this hellscape right now but would have President Harris.
Thank you, Anne and Gary. I too was very conflicted about what the "right" choice was. Ultimately, I opted to follow the lead of Bernie and AOC because I trust them. But on the merits, it seemed like equally bad choices either way.
I especially appreciate the modesty of Anne's comment: "I could be wrong. . .a lot of smart people disagree with me."
That's what is woefully missing from so much of the Progressive commentary. It all sounds so arrogant and self-righteous. Describing anyone who disagrees with them as cowards or collaborationists is exactly the kind of patronizing attitude that drove half the country into the arms of extremists.
A little respect for divergent viewpoints would go a long way towards healing the divisions this issue has created in the Democratic Party. It also would encourage new leadership to emerge, as they would feel that the people's support for them will be steadfast when hard choices have to be made.
We need to build coalitions and make alliances in order to defeat MAGA. Truth be told, we even need some Republicans to be on our side. Chuck Schumer and Angus King are not the enemy. Donald Trump and Elon Musk are the enemy.
As Jesse Jackson used to say, "Keep your eyes on the prize."
Amen. If you consider the Democratic Party has two poles, each side is convinced the other side is the very reason we are losing. There's an intransigence there stemming from that deep conviction. I feel it myself. It's very hard to let it go and obviously I'm not alone.
I wouldn't assume that the orange blob legitimately won the election. After all, Elon has a whole crew of hackers at his disposal, and GOP operatives have accessed voting systems in a number of locations since 2020.
The problem is: Republicans already *have* the answer to "fearing losing elections": they controve not to. Do we think they've suddenly lost the ability they acquired in Nov 2024? Their disenfranchisement schemes have stalled? Their propaganda organs have muted? Their vote-counting anomalies have normalized?
Putin doesn't fear elections, and for the same reasons.
Schumer missed the whole point. This was never about a shutdown, it was about making a stand against DOGE. It was about Congress exercising it's rightful duty to represent the people's voice over budgetary matters. We all lost.
Bullshit. They could have "made a stand" against DOGE - so what? Wouldn't have stopped DOGE, wouldn't have slowed down DOGE, and in fact would have given DOGE extra power.
This makes zero difference. It can also be argued the shutdown would have made what they are doing much harder. Besides, it is what they are doing already. Please explain how a shutdown makes their chaotic destuction of our agencies easier. SCOTUS has an easy out if this decision shows the legislative branch acquiest or otherwise passed their constitutional duties to the executive branch of government.
Reluctantly I agree with you. Trump and musk would have had greater power during a shutdown. The fact that the House adjourned would have prevented any negotiation, even had democrats insisted on some modifications. Trump simply doesn’t care what damage he causes. Let’s hope the courts can rein him in. And that he complies
This is a false narrative. The changes to the CR ceded congressional power of the purse to the executive branch, thus pulling the rug out from under legal challenges. Therefore, Trump abd Musk now have limitless power which is the opposite of what Schumer claimed. Now the destruction is assured and the fight will eventually into the streets.
In a sense, any CR cedes the power of the purse from Congress. But it's not the CR itself that does it. It's the failure of Congress to pass appropriations bills. That remains the problem whether or not the CR passes.
The passage of this CR, which is in effect until September, means that there will be no specifically authorized spending provisions for the entire Fiscal Year 2025. A government shutdown would not have changed this. Either way, the Executive Branch decides how funds will be allocated within agencies.
While it's gotten little specific attention, this is an epic failure by the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson (R-LA). Senate appropriations committees have worked overtime to craft bills that would receive bipartisan support if voted on.
It was Mr. Johnson's primary responsibility as Speaker to bring appropriation measures to the floor which could pass and be reconciled with Senate versions to become law. He failed to do so either during the closing months of the 118th Congress or the opening months of the 119th Congress.
Where in the CR does congress cede the power of the purse to the executive? Can you provide a quote/reference? Anyway, even if true it would be unconstitutional without a constitutional amendment.
And in normal times, negotiations between the Democrats and Republicans would have led to the government reopening at some point. But now there would be no negotiations from the Republicans, possibly leading to a long term, if not permanent shutdown. They like the situation with the government closed. I say this reluctantly as I was one that urged Schumer not to capitulate.
I’m conflicted. Angus King of Maine is a really bright guy, and he voted it in.
We’re between rounds 1 and 2 of the rope a dope, let Trump’s bad ideas and policy wreck his popularity. The resistance badly needs a leader, hopefully one emerges before the people have had enough.
I disagree, but also think you could be right. When there are no good options, picking the least bad option is best.
The dismantling of government will continue no matter if the bill passed or not. The gop in congress and the senate have already laid down, so with or without a bill there is no meaningful opposition. That is why I thought obstructing would have been better, to show that there is some fight and that democrats will not just lie down.
you're not wrong..I think there is just as good a possibility that what you're saying is right as that Schumer failed..It was a complete disaster either way
I was against the CR however, your argument seems to hold water to me. It’s a done deal so we will see together what happens. I wish us the best of luck.
I agree. As much as I hate to admit it, I think the right decision was made and calling the Dems who voted to keep the government open “Vichy” Democrats is wrong and actually very unfair. In my opinion, the problem isn’t the actual vote but the lack of clear messaging. Schumer’s mistake was not thinking this out clearly and then messaging about it in a meaningful way. Dems need to get better at messaging or they will never get back in power because right now the base is very angry.
I haven’t heard a decent message from Schumer in years. This is not 1995, there are no options for compromise. But I’m flat out tired of listening to Schumer talk like he’s reading to a group of pre-schoolers. These times call for more aggressive, in-your-face speeches and talking points. I’m 60 yo. I’ve been around since LBJ. These times need an elbows up mentality for those who will fight for us. Schumer isn’t it, and hasn’t been for the last decade. We’ll never know if the right call was made yesterday. We have no cards. At least Zelenskyy has a few. Disappointed is an understatement - I live in Missouri and can’t leave. There’s no Democratic Party here either. Either a change happens, or I will continue my stoppage of donating money to all of them.
I have been back and forth on this issue in my head, but at decision time, I tend to agree with you. I can still recall the demands of the far left in the 2016 election when the "Bernie or bust" movement sliced votes from Hillary with which she would have won despite the Russian interference. Those voters stayed home or "third-partied", resulting in a Supreme Court which self-destructed their agenda for the rest of their lives. Sometimes you swallow the less bitter pill.
I agree. I don't like this at all, but perhaps Schumer is one of the few Democrats who actually understood the realistic consequences. Let's not underestimate the evil of t.
The more I learn about the CR, the more I realize they could have easily messaged this better. If we had a shutdown, the administration would have to execute it and they would fail and make things worse,yes. But sometimes you have to let people fail. It’s the only way for people to see what’s there. Where is the new DNC head on this? I’m looking for new leadership!
This isn’t a moment to let people fail by letting the Rs shut down the government. Too many fragile people get hurt and the Rs don’t care. Dems don’t let people suffer to let people fail so they learn a lesson.
A shut down would have been worse. Trump could have used it to immediately fire those in the judiciary and close courts who could rule against him and permanently destroy agencies without any recourse in the courts. He could have sent members of Congress home. There was no good option. Everyone should pressure their members of Congress to fix the bill by preserving SS, Medicare, and Medicaid, and allocating the use of funds that the bill left undefined, etc.
He also can't break contracts, laws,or treaties, or blatantly violate the Constitution, but he did. He and Vougt in the OMB can close anything, even if it is unlawful. They can reduce the personnel to the point the agency or court can't function. He just signed an EO to close a bunch of agencies that had been set up by acts of Congress without them enacting new legislation to close them.
It is not firing. It is s shutdown. No one is working bc there is no budget to facilitate spending money to facilitate working. And what if Trump refuses to spare SS, Medicare, and Medicaid as well as VA from the shutdown? Who will stop him? And who will reverse the shutdown if Trump doesn’t want to restart the government?
I think Trump wanted a shutdown. He would have run amok with a brush ax. He would have been unconstrained -- even the courts could not have reigned him in. There were no good choices here and I think Schumer et al. chose the right course of action.
So far, the most progress we have made against Trump is with the court cases, but courts can be slow.
Schumer said quite a bit more than you mention here, however, as well.
What he revealed was that he had been told that Trump and Musk already had a plan to simply furlough employees if the government was shut down and close most agencies, and simply never reopen or bring any of the employees back.
It would play right into their hands.
Permanently and legally furloughed employees would not have any legal way to get a job back and right now, we are seeing them be able to win cases for being wrongfully terminated.
The "Trump- whipped" GOP would then try to codify the agency closures, but they would not even need to do so, since they could exist merely on paper with no funding once they pass a budget reconciliation with a simple majority. Any legal obligations that the agencies were set up to fulfill, could be done however, if pressured by the courts.
Based on this, I think Schumer made the right call.
There was no good decision to be made, but he made it so that his Senators could vote "no" and in the end only he and one other voted for the bill since he agreed to take the fall for this hard decision.
I find it odd that you do not mention that only 2 voted "yes" and none of them needed to do so, in order for it to pass, although it took 8 to bring it to the floor.
If he had let the Dems filibuster, they would have owned not only the shutdown, but the furloughs and Trump would then also blame his pending economic collapse on Dems as well for shutting down the government.
Everything that happens under Trump, needs to be blamed on him, so that even red states and millionaires and billionaires who will lose money, finally get mad enough to pressure congress and bail on him.
In all honesty that is our only hope, other than the courts, because Trump would have capitalized on any shutdown.
I simply wonder why you did not reveal all the details behind Schumer's decision and that only he and one other voted for the CR and that their votes were not even required,
Then he should have said all that to explain his total turnaround from no to yes. But he didn't say any of that. Just that's the shutdown would hurt Americans. Those of us old enough to have been through a shutdown before know this. But sometimes a shutdown is necessary to get the opposing party to negotiate in good faith.
However, "some" were capitalizing on bashing him and they did not want to admit they were being overly reactive and too quick to speak and some liked the attention they were drumming up for themselves (and this is how they tend to get it) so watch out and look things up.
Most others probably simply did not know quickly enough, why he made the decision he did and felt betrayed and sad since they were looking forward to the fight and it was too much at the last minute to handle.
I am a life-long Dem and the only pet-peeve I have is "some" on the far-left seem to need to personally attack anyone who disagrees with them, even if it is one of their own, who may even have a very good argument.
Those in this particular camp, never want you to hear the other side - and try to convince you that they are right and everyone else is next to pure evil, or a sell out, a "corporate Dem," and all that yadda-yadda - nonsense!
And as a result, Dems lose elections when they should win from all of this ideological insanity and inside attacks.
Good grief, some on the far left said Al Gore was not “liberal enough” and so they ran a 3rd party candidate and Bush won. Then they promoted Jill Stein against Hillary and Trump won.
Just think, if not for all of this, that ends up helping the GOP win, we could have been fighting climate change for the last 35 years!
BTW - I am a Dem and I like 'most' of the left's policies ideas a lot, I just do not like the approach some of them take, that ends up causing nothing done, at all, and that trashes others in their party as a way to promote themselves. We can not move forward and make progress if we do not win elections.
The radical agenda of the far left is what keeps swing voters away from democratic party candidates, even if the candidate themself is moderate. Far left democrats need to rein it in a bit if they want to attract swing voters. For example, I think basic human rights for racial and gender minorities are something we can all agree on, but allowing male transgender athletes to compete in women's sports is very unpopular and a step too far. The LGBTQ community needs to be more realistic about this and stop insisting on an all or nothing approach to transgender rights.
There are very few transgender people in sports, and the don't really have an advantage over non-trans people. It's something that can be left to the sports federations. The govt does NOT need to be involved in making laws.
"In a shutdown, Mr. Schumer said, “the Trump administration would have full authority to deem whole agencies, programs and personnel nonessential, furloughing staff with no promise that they would ever be rehired.”
He also warned that if the government closed, Mr. Trump and Republicans would have no incentive to reopen it, since they could selectively fund “their favorite departments and agencies, while leaving other vital services that they don’t like to languish.”
Now he, or someone, has also said that he was informed about Trump and Musk's plans to do this. This was their intent. One wonders if someone in the GOP filled him in on the plot. Who knows? I would not be surprised.
In a shutdown government workers aren’t paid, but once the shutdown ends they get paid for the work they did. So pay is delayed, but not denied. Therefore, this is not much of an excuse for avoiding a shutdown. Schumer and his group are Vichy Democrats or Dinos, Democrats in name only. They’ve flunked their most important exam and should be removed from party leadership, because they are Trump enablers, not leaders.
I do not want to be, like the Republicans and MAGA Republicans, someone who only responds to fear not fact. I follow Heather Cox Richardson and she reports this point made by Schumer: "But Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said he would support advancing the spending bill. He argued that permitting the Republicans to shut down the government would not only hurt people. It would also give Trump and his sidekick billionaire Elon Musk full control over government spending, he said, because under a shutdown, the administration gets to determine which functions of the government are essential and which are not." This is not something I had seen reported. I am also taking notice of Anne's comment on this page that if the government had shut down, would it ever reopen. That is a valid point I think. Impossible choices but I do think the Democrats are trying to thread the needle
I follow Heather Cox Richardson too. She’s great. But I think the Republican bill lists dozens of federal agencies that DOGE has been gutting illegally and *officially* gives Trump permission to continue firing people in them (I didn’t read it closely but I remember seeing the long list and above it a statement about the administration being able to do what it wants). If this is what Schumer and the other 9 Democrat Senators voted for, then they are Vichy.
Edit: ‘If a sequestration is ordered by the President under section 254 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, the spending, expenditure, or operating plan required by this section shall reflect such sequestration.’ Sequestration means “taking legal possession of assets.” Then there’s a long list of departments that can be subject to this: agriculture, commerce, defense, and on and on. https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1968/text#H5094ACCE85114405A0C246A0A78FB473
Steven, earlier in the week, Donnie said “Schumer used to be Jewish. Now he’s a Palestinian”. You have to wonder if these words weren’t a call out to his thugs to threaten Chuck. He is now traveling the country, out on a book tour. Those harassing him, however, will be the Dems.
Regardless, we need new leadership because Schumer isn’t the only one who needs to go. Dick Durbin does also. I would love to see a woman take Chuck’s place and we have plenty to choose from such as Warren, Duckworth, Hirano, and Klobuchar. Warren is fired up because Russell Vought is screwing with her Consumer Financial Bureau. She’s 75 now but she’s upright and cognizant. The others are younger and are just as effective but I’d love for any of them to take a stab at this admin.
I like Elissa Slotkin, I though she did a great job rebutting Trump's speech last week and she's young and has shown herself capable of reaching swing voters and winning in a swing state. Unfortunately she probably doesn't have enough seniority.
I don't know if Schumer and others did the right thing. But they did do the wrong thing when they attended Trump's address to Congress, wearing whatever colors and holding up little signs. Better to have not been there at all than to have been played for stooges. What does resisting look like? I think it means being more like Jasmine Crockett and Bernie and AOC than like Chuck.I have had to deplane from the news for my health, but I think someone with guts and a fast mouth needs to lead the Democrats out of the wilderness where they are wandering around, trying to appeal to moderates. Moderates? Really? People who like Trump are in a cult, just as people were who followed Jim Jones, David Koresh and Heaven's Gate. They have to realize they are being played and leave. There ain't no talking to them.
AOC has it right, again. Small and large demonstrations at the district offices of elected representatives are taking place, and will continue regularly, until we elect BETTER, more courageous people.
I agree that we need to pressure every single Representative and Senator to undo the damage an impeach Trump. However, demonstrations need to be very carefully planned so they don't give any excuse for Trump to impose martial law. Another factor is measles. Anyone planning to be in a crowd should be vaccinated if they haven't already had measles so they won't bring it back to their homes and communities.
Everyone should write letters, send emails,and make calls demanding impeachment. The letters can be hand-delivered to the distict offices. This also gives a reason to be there other than demonstrating.
The shutdown would have hastened the imposition of martial law, exactly what Musk and Trump want. If actual street-fighting revolution is in the cards, it doesn't matter if there's a six-month delay. In the meantime, there are significant court cases slowing down the Department of Government Evisceration. You can bet the shutdown would have given Trump even more power to take over the Judiciary, just as Hitler did. It's beginning to look like revolution is the only way out, but there's still a chance that the courts will give us enough time to expel enough of the fascist Republicans in 2026.
The left doesn't have to be this stupid. Framing Schumer is a villain is stupid. Trump wanted a shutdown so that he could have an easier time destroying all the agencies he hates. The only agencies that would have reopened would have been law enforcement agencies he needs to persecute immigrants.
Of course the nation didn't need a shutdown, but it was being forced on us. Trump and Musk were laughing up their sleeves about the trap they had set, now they're laughing out loud. They had "carte blanche" before, but now they have license. The courts, even the SCOTUS would have had greater incentive to draw the line if Schumer et al had hung tough. Schumer has disappointed me. Your comparison to Petain fits well.
In her writing this morning, Heather Cox Richardson perfectly described an alternative that would have allowed Dems to continue to work for the people, rather than capitulating as they did:
House Democrats took a strong stand against enabling the Trump Republicans, calling for Democratic senators to maintain the filibuster and try to force the Republicans to negotiate for a one-month continuing resolution that would give Congress time to negotiate a bipartisan bill to fund the government.
I am deeply disappointed in Sen. Schumer’s actions and will be continuing in my personal resistance against this Trump-Musk fascist regime.
If they tried to negotiate a short extension, the GOP would only have to run out the clock and blame the Democrats to cause the shutdown.. It is better to fight Musk/Trump/Vought when there is still a government.
I am in the minority, but I think if the govt had shut down it would never have reopened. We now have six months to get the republicans to fear losing elections more than they fear trump. Every bad thing in the CR would have happened during a shutdown anyway. I know it was horrible. I know a shutdown is horrible. But I think that the govt would not have reopened if a shut down had happened.
I admit I am probably wrong; a lot of smart people disagree with me. I just wish this level of outrage had been there in Nov so Harris would have won. Too many people chose to ignore all the warnings and stayed home instead of voting. Elections have consequences.
Absolutely correct. I am still dumbfounded that Trump lost re-election by 7 million votes in 2020 and then gets elected again after fomenting an insurrection, denying the verified election result, and being criminally convicted of felonies. And we had a strong economy when this happened. The voters put us (and themselves) in this position. They were amply warned, repeatedly. Let the voters get us out of this.
He had a great deal of help from the tech industry and the Kremlin.
Boom! Maybe more help than we will ever know.
True, but when you realize that people are immersed in a growing right-wing propaganda bubble, when you add X to the mix, then it is a bit less confusing. This group is being misinformed intentionally.
Then others were young or uninformed or underinformed, and then throw in sexism and racism for some.
He won the by a small percentage and if people showed up in large blue states he would have lost the popular vote.
There was so much swing state emphasis, that large blue state turnout was terrible - especially the youth vote. Young folks did not bother to vote in large numbers like CA and NY.
All true. It came down to 231k votes in MI, PA, and WI, the total he won by in those 3 states. Had just over half of those - or a larger turn out of the indifferent - gone to Harris, we would not be living in this hellscape right now but would have President Harris.
Thank you, Anne and Gary. I too was very conflicted about what the "right" choice was. Ultimately, I opted to follow the lead of Bernie and AOC because I trust them. But on the merits, it seemed like equally bad choices either way.
I especially appreciate the modesty of Anne's comment: "I could be wrong. . .a lot of smart people disagree with me."
That's what is woefully missing from so much of the Progressive commentary. It all sounds so arrogant and self-righteous. Describing anyone who disagrees with them as cowards or collaborationists is exactly the kind of patronizing attitude that drove half the country into the arms of extremists.
A little respect for divergent viewpoints would go a long way towards healing the divisions this issue has created in the Democratic Party. It also would encourage new leadership to emerge, as they would feel that the people's support for them will be steadfast when hard choices have to be made.
We need to build coalitions and make alliances in order to defeat MAGA. Truth be told, we even need some Republicans to be on our side. Chuck Schumer and Angus King are not the enemy. Donald Trump and Elon Musk are the enemy.
As Jesse Jackson used to say, "Keep your eyes on the prize."
.
Amen. If you consider the Democratic Party has two poles, each side is convinced the other side is the very reason we are losing. There's an intransigence there stemming from that deep conviction. I feel it myself. It's very hard to let it go and obviously I'm not alone.
America has an anger problem. Tribalism and other forms of "CBT's Jumping to Conclusions Mind Reading" are the prevention.
...more on request...
I wouldn't assume that the orange blob legitimately won the election. After all, Elon has a whole crew of hackers at his disposal, and GOP operatives have accessed voting systems in a number of locations since 2020.
No collaboration with fascists! Democrats need to elevate more women of color. They should do everything they can free Mahmoud Khalil! https://democracydefender2025.substack.com/p/mahmoud-khalil-freedom-peace-poem
The problem is: Republicans already *have* the answer to "fearing losing elections": they controve not to. Do we think they've suddenly lost the ability they acquired in Nov 2024? Their disenfranchisement schemes have stalled? Their propaganda organs have muted? Their vote-counting anomalies have normalized?
Putin doesn't fear elections, and for the same reasons.
You're not wrong. Schumer was right. A government shutdown is exactly what Trump and Musk wanted.
Schumer missed the whole point. This was never about a shutdown, it was about making a stand against DOGE. It was about Congress exercising it's rightful duty to represent the people's voice over budgetary matters. We all lost.
Bullshit. They could have "made a stand" against DOGE - so what? Wouldn't have stopped DOGE, wouldn't have slowed down DOGE, and in fact would have given DOGE extra power.
DOGE has never been duly athorized by Congress. The Congressional acquiessence may be construed as such by SCOTUS.
And? The shutdown still would've made Doge's task easier. And Scotus will approve Doge regardless of what Congress does or doesn't do.
This makes zero difference. It can also be argued the shutdown would have made what they are doing much harder. Besides, it is what they are doing already. Please explain how a shutdown makes their chaotic destuction of our agencies easier. SCOTUS has an easy out if this decision shows the legislative branch acquiest or otherwise passed their constitutional duties to the executive branch of government.
thanks
Reluctantly I agree with you. Trump and musk would have had greater power during a shutdown. The fact that the House adjourned would have prevented any negotiation, even had democrats insisted on some modifications. Trump simply doesn’t care what damage he causes. Let’s hope the courts can rein him in. And that he complies
This is a false narrative. The changes to the CR ceded congressional power of the purse to the executive branch, thus pulling the rug out from under legal challenges. Therefore, Trump abd Musk now have limitless power which is the opposite of what Schumer claimed. Now the destruction is assured and the fight will eventually into the streets.
In a sense, any CR cedes the power of the purse from Congress. But it's not the CR itself that does it. It's the failure of Congress to pass appropriations bills. That remains the problem whether or not the CR passes.
The passage of this CR, which is in effect until September, means that there will be no specifically authorized spending provisions for the entire Fiscal Year 2025. A government shutdown would not have changed this. Either way, the Executive Branch decides how funds will be allocated within agencies.
While it's gotten little specific attention, this is an epic failure by the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson (R-LA). Senate appropriations committees have worked overtime to craft bills that would receive bipartisan support if voted on.
It was Mr. Johnson's primary responsibility as Speaker to bring appropriation measures to the floor which could pass and be reconciled with Senate versions to become law. He failed to do so either during the closing months of the 118th Congress or the opening months of the 119th Congress.
.
Where in the CR does congress cede the power of the purse to the executive? Can you provide a quote/reference? Anyway, even if true it would be unconstitutional without a constitutional amendment.
Via Section 4 of this rider, that's how.
https://www.congress.gov/119/bills/hres211/BILLS-119hres211eh.pdf
Sorry, not constitutional.
And in normal times, negotiations between the Democrats and Republicans would have led to the government reopening at some point. But now there would be no negotiations from the Republicans, possibly leading to a long term, if not permanent shutdown. They like the situation with the government closed. I say this reluctantly as I was one that urged Schumer not to capitulate.
No - in fact, Schumer had been informed that this was Trump and Musk's plan.
He was not just assuming. This why he had to change his mind so late in the game.
So you are correct.
thanks...
I’m conflicted. Angus King of Maine is a really bright guy, and he voted it in.
We’re between rounds 1 and 2 of the rope a dope, let Trump’s bad ideas and policy wreck his popularity. The resistance badly needs a leader, hopefully one emerges before the people have had enough.
I disagree, but also think you could be right. When there are no good options, picking the least bad option is best.
The dismantling of government will continue no matter if the bill passed or not. The gop in congress and the senate have already laid down, so with or without a bill there is no meaningful opposition. That is why I thought obstructing would have been better, to show that there is some fight and that democrats will not just lie down.
you're not wrong..I think there is just as good a possibility that what you're saying is right as that Schumer failed..It was a complete disaster either way
I was against the CR however, your argument seems to hold water to me. It’s a done deal so we will see together what happens. I wish us the best of luck.
I agree. As much as I hate to admit it, I think the right decision was made and calling the Dems who voted to keep the government open “Vichy” Democrats is wrong and actually very unfair. In my opinion, the problem isn’t the actual vote but the lack of clear messaging. Schumer’s mistake was not thinking this out clearly and then messaging about it in a meaningful way. Dems need to get better at messaging or they will never get back in power because right now the base is very angry.
I haven’t heard a decent message from Schumer in years. This is not 1995, there are no options for compromise. But I’m flat out tired of listening to Schumer talk like he’s reading to a group of pre-schoolers. These times call for more aggressive, in-your-face speeches and talking points. I’m 60 yo. I’ve been around since LBJ. These times need an elbows up mentality for those who will fight for us. Schumer isn’t it, and hasn’t been for the last decade. We’ll never know if the right call was made yesterday. We have no cards. At least Zelenskyy has a few. Disappointed is an understatement - I live in Missouri and can’t leave. There’s no Democratic Party here either. Either a change happens, or I will continue my stoppage of donating money to all of them.
The DNC has been pathetic at messaging for a long time now, I won't support them any longer, only individual candidates.
I read Schumer's op-ed in the NY Times, it was published prior to the vote, and he laid out his reasoning very clearly in that piece.
Yeah the Good Germans of the USA.
I have been back and forth on this issue in my head, but at decision time, I tend to agree with you. I can still recall the demands of the far left in the 2016 election when the "Bernie or bust" movement sliced votes from Hillary with which she would have won despite the Russian interference. Those voters stayed home or "third-partied", resulting in a Supreme Court which self-destructed their agenda for the rest of their lives. Sometimes you swallow the less bitter pill.
I agree. I don't like this at all, but perhaps Schumer is one of the few Democrats who actually understood the realistic consequences. Let's not underestimate the evil of t.
Right on. I feel the same way. I also thought it might be a crap shoot either way. Either way, the American people were going to go down the tubes.
The more I learn about the CR, the more I realize they could have easily messaged this better. If we had a shutdown, the administration would have to execute it and they would fail and make things worse,yes. But sometimes you have to let people fail. It’s the only way for people to see what’s there. Where is the new DNC head on this? I’m looking for new leadership!
No kidding! He has been silent as a lamb!
This isn’t a moment to let people fail by letting the Rs shut down the government. Too many fragile people get hurt and the Rs don’t care. Dems don’t let people suffer to let people fail so they learn a lesson.
A shut down would have been worse. Trump could have used it to immediately fire those in the judiciary and close courts who could rule against him and permanently destroy agencies without any recourse in the courts. He could have sent members of Congress home. There was no good option. Everyone should pressure their members of Congress to fix the bill by preserving SS, Medicare, and Medicaid, and allocating the use of funds that the bill left undefined, etc.
Fix the bill? Who will be doing that? This is magical thinking. TRUMP is shutting down the government NOW and no one has stopped him.
I agree, but there is nothing to fix, it is a done deal until Sept. If you mean pass new leg - sure.
The courts do not close during a shutdown, although personnel may be reduced. Trump cannot fire the judiciary.
He also can't break contracts, laws,or treaties, or blatantly violate the Constitution, but he did. He and Vougt in the OMB can close anything, even if it is unlawful. They can reduce the personnel to the point the agency or court can't function. He just signed an EO to close a bunch of agencies that had been set up by acts of Congress without them enacting new legislation to close them.
It is not firing. It is s shutdown. No one is working bc there is no budget to facilitate spending money to facilitate working. And what if Trump refuses to spare SS, Medicare, and Medicaid as well as VA from the shutdown? Who will stop him? And who will reverse the shutdown if Trump doesn’t want to restart the government?
I think Trump wanted a shutdown. He would have run amok with a brush ax. He would have been unconstrained -- even the courts could not have reigned him in. There were no good choices here and I think Schumer et al. chose the right course of action.
So far, the most progress we have made against Trump is with the court cases, but courts can be slow.
Schumer said quite a bit more than you mention here, however, as well.
What he revealed was that he had been told that Trump and Musk already had a plan to simply furlough employees if the government was shut down and close most agencies, and simply never reopen or bring any of the employees back.
It would play right into their hands.
Permanently and legally furloughed employees would not have any legal way to get a job back and right now, we are seeing them be able to win cases for being wrongfully terminated.
The "Trump- whipped" GOP would then try to codify the agency closures, but they would not even need to do so, since they could exist merely on paper with no funding once they pass a budget reconciliation with a simple majority. Any legal obligations that the agencies were set up to fulfill, could be done however, if pressured by the courts.
Based on this, I think Schumer made the right call.
There was no good decision to be made, but he made it so that his Senators could vote "no" and in the end only he and one other voted for the bill since he agreed to take the fall for this hard decision.
I find it odd that you do not mention that only 2 voted "yes" and none of them needed to do so, in order for it to pass, although it took 8 to bring it to the floor.
If he had let the Dems filibuster, they would have owned not only the shutdown, but the furloughs and Trump would then also blame his pending economic collapse on Dems as well for shutting down the government.
Everything that happens under Trump, needs to be blamed on him, so that even red states and millionaires and billionaires who will lose money, finally get mad enough to pressure congress and bail on him.
In all honesty that is our only hope, other than the courts, because Trump would have capitalized on any shutdown.
I simply wonder why you did not reveal all the details behind Schumer's decision and that only he and one other voted for the CR and that their votes were not even required,
Then he should have said all that to explain his total turnaround from no to yes. But he didn't say any of that. Just that's the shutdown would hurt Americans. Those of us old enough to have been through a shutdown before know this. But sometimes a shutdown is necessary to get the opposing party to negotiate in good faith.
Republicans are not able to negotiate in good faith.
He did say that.
It is even in the NYT in an article.
However, "some" were capitalizing on bashing him and they did not want to admit they were being overly reactive and too quick to speak and some liked the attention they were drumming up for themselves (and this is how they tend to get it) so watch out and look things up.
Most others probably simply did not know quickly enough, why he made the decision he did and felt betrayed and sad since they were looking forward to the fight and it was too much at the last minute to handle.
I am a life-long Dem and the only pet-peeve I have is "some" on the far-left seem to need to personally attack anyone who disagrees with them, even if it is one of their own, who may even have a very good argument.
Those in this particular camp, never want you to hear the other side - and try to convince you that they are right and everyone else is next to pure evil, or a sell out, a "corporate Dem," and all that yadda-yadda - nonsense!
And as a result, Dems lose elections when they should win from all of this ideological insanity and inside attacks.
Good grief, some on the far left said Al Gore was not “liberal enough” and so they ran a 3rd party candidate and Bush won. Then they promoted Jill Stein against Hillary and Trump won.
Just think, if not for all of this, that ends up helping the GOP win, we could have been fighting climate change for the last 35 years!
BTW - I am a Dem and I like 'most' of the left's policies ideas a lot, I just do not like the approach some of them take, that ends up causing nothing done, at all, and that trashes others in their party as a way to promote themselves. We can not move forward and make progress if we do not win elections.
The radical agenda of the far left is what keeps swing voters away from democratic party candidates, even if the candidate themself is moderate. Far left democrats need to rein it in a bit if they want to attract swing voters. For example, I think basic human rights for racial and gender minorities are something we can all agree on, but allowing male transgender athletes to compete in women's sports is very unpopular and a step too far. The LGBTQ community needs to be more realistic about this and stop insisting on an all or nothing approach to transgender rights.
There are very few transgender people in sports, and the don't really have an advantage over non-trans people. It's something that can be left to the sports federations. The govt does NOT need to be involved in making laws.
Here is what Schumer said in the NYT article:
"In a shutdown, Mr. Schumer said, “the Trump administration would have full authority to deem whole agencies, programs and personnel nonessential, furloughing staff with no promise that they would ever be rehired.”
He also warned that if the government closed, Mr. Trump and Republicans would have no incentive to reopen it, since they could selectively fund “their favorite departments and agencies, while leaving other vital services that they don’t like to languish.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/13/us/government-shutdown-senate-democrats.html?smid=url-share
Now he, or someone, has also said that he was informed about Trump and Musk's plans to do this. This was their intent. One wonders if someone in the GOP filled him in on the plot. Who knows? I would not be surprised.
Yes, shutdowns are terrible. But someone needs to stand up to Trump instead of handing him more power.
Totally agree with PipandJoe
Exactly.
In a shutdown government workers aren’t paid, but once the shutdown ends they get paid for the work they did. So pay is delayed, but not denied. Therefore, this is not much of an excuse for avoiding a shutdown. Schumer and his group are Vichy Democrats or Dinos, Democrats in name only. They’ve flunked their most important exam and should be removed from party leadership, because they are Trump enablers, not leaders.
If there had been a government shutdown it never would have reopened. Or only the agencies that Trump likes would have reopened.
I think you did not hear about Musk and Trump's plan that Schumer found out about.
If the Dems did a shutdown the plan was to close all the agencies and furlough all employees and simply never bring most of them back.
If they did this, the employees could not even go to court to say they were wrongfully terminated since they would be in an endless state of limbo.
There is no reason to expect Trump and Musk will restart anything.
THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE THE COUP for godsake! Once shut down there is no way to stop them.
I do not want to be, like the Republicans and MAGA Republicans, someone who only responds to fear not fact. I follow Heather Cox Richardson and she reports this point made by Schumer: "But Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said he would support advancing the spending bill. He argued that permitting the Republicans to shut down the government would not only hurt people. It would also give Trump and his sidekick billionaire Elon Musk full control over government spending, he said, because under a shutdown, the administration gets to determine which functions of the government are essential and which are not." This is not something I had seen reported. I am also taking notice of Anne's comment on this page that if the government had shut down, would it ever reopen. That is a valid point I think. Impossible choices but I do think the Democrats are trying to thread the needle
I follow Heather Cox Richardson too. She’s great. But I think the Republican bill lists dozens of federal agencies that DOGE has been gutting illegally and *officially* gives Trump permission to continue firing people in them (I didn’t read it closely but I remember seeing the long list and above it a statement about the administration being able to do what it wants). If this is what Schumer and the other 9 Democrat Senators voted for, then they are Vichy.
Edit: ‘If a sequestration is ordered by the President under section 254 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, the spending, expenditure, or operating plan required by this section shall reflect such sequestration.’ Sequestration means “taking legal possession of assets.” Then there’s a long list of departments that can be subject to this: agriculture, commerce, defense, and on and on. https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1968/text#H5094ACCE85114405A0C246A0A78FB473
New name to add to the collection:
Chamberlain
Quisling
Schumer
Steven, earlier in the week, Donnie said “Schumer used to be Jewish. Now he’s a Palestinian”. You have to wonder if these words weren’t a call out to his thugs to threaten Chuck. He is now traveling the country, out on a book tour. Those harassing him, however, will be the Dems.
Regardless, we need new leadership because Schumer isn’t the only one who needs to go. Dick Durbin does also. I would love to see a woman take Chuck’s place and we have plenty to choose from such as Warren, Duckworth, Hirano, and Klobuchar. Warren is fired up because Russell Vought is screwing with her Consumer Financial Bureau. She’s 75 now but she’s upright and cognizant. The others are younger and are just as effective but I’d love for any of them to take a stab at this admin.
I like Elissa Slotkin, I though she did a great job rebutting Trump's speech last week and she's young and has shown herself capable of reaching swing voters and winning in a swing state. Unfortunately she probably doesn't have enough seniority.
She definitely has promise. I want her to keep getting her feet wet and then come out swinging.
Warren or maybe Duckworth. Klobuchar is not an asset.
I don't know if Schumer and others did the right thing. But they did do the wrong thing when they attended Trump's address to Congress, wearing whatever colors and holding up little signs. Better to have not been there at all than to have been played for stooges. What does resisting look like? I think it means being more like Jasmine Crockett and Bernie and AOC than like Chuck.I have had to deplane from the news for my health, but I think someone with guts and a fast mouth needs to lead the Democrats out of the wilderness where they are wandering around, trying to appeal to moderates. Moderates? Really? People who like Trump are in a cult, just as people were who followed Jim Jones, David Koresh and Heaven's Gate. They have to realize they are being played and leave. There ain't no talking to them.
Shutting down the government would have made Musk's task much easier. You can call it collaboration, but it wasn't.
AOC has it right, again. Small and large demonstrations at the district offices of elected representatives are taking place, and will continue regularly, until we elect BETTER, more courageous people.
I agree that we need to pressure every single Representative and Senator to undo the damage an impeach Trump. However, demonstrations need to be very carefully planned so they don't give any excuse for Trump to impose martial law. Another factor is measles. Anyone planning to be in a crowd should be vaccinated if they haven't already had measles so they won't bring it back to their homes and communities.
Everyone should write letters, send emails,and make calls demanding impeachment. The letters can be hand-delivered to the distict offices. This also gives a reason to be there other than demonstrating.
The shutdown would have hastened the imposition of martial law, exactly what Musk and Trump want. If actual street-fighting revolution is in the cards, it doesn't matter if there's a six-month delay. In the meantime, there are significant court cases slowing down the Department of Government Evisceration. You can bet the shutdown would have given Trump even more power to take over the Judiciary, just as Hitler did. It's beginning to look like revolution is the only way out, but there's still a chance that the courts will give us enough time to expel enough of the fascist Republicans in 2026.
The left doesn't have to be this stupid. Framing Schumer is a villain is stupid. Trump wanted a shutdown so that he could have an easier time destroying all the agencies he hates. The only agencies that would have reopened would have been law enforcement agencies he needs to persecute immigrants.
Of course the nation didn't need a shutdown, but it was being forced on us. Trump and Musk were laughing up their sleeves about the trap they had set, now they're laughing out loud. They had "carte blanche" before, but now they have license. The courts, even the SCOTUS would have had greater incentive to draw the line if Schumer et al had hung tough. Schumer has disappointed me. Your comparison to Petain fits well.
In her writing this morning, Heather Cox Richardson perfectly described an alternative that would have allowed Dems to continue to work for the people, rather than capitulating as they did:
House Democrats took a strong stand against enabling the Trump Republicans, calling for Democratic senators to maintain the filibuster and try to force the Republicans to negotiate for a one-month continuing resolution that would give Congress time to negotiate a bipartisan bill to fund the government.
I am deeply disappointed in Sen. Schumer’s actions and will be continuing in my personal resistance against this Trump-Musk fascist regime.
If they tried to negotiate a short extension, the GOP would only have to run out the clock and blame the Democrats to cause the shutdown.. It is better to fight Musk/Trump/Vought when there is still a government.