If President Obama makes good on his threat and refuses to sign a temporary spending bill if one comes across his desk, who will get the blame for “shutting down the government”? The prevailing wisdom is that Republicans will get the blame (presumably due to their majorities in both houses of Congress) if no spending bill is passed but does the same apply if reason the government “shuts down” is that the president refuses to sign a temporary bill? Does President Obama’s 45% approval rating factor into the equation?
We’re facing a similar situation here in Illinois. For the last several months the state of Illinois has been operating without a budget under various court orders because Gov. Bruce Rauner won’t sign an unbalanced budget. The difference is that the Illinois constitution requires a balanced budget while there’s nothing unconstitutional about a temporary spending bill.
I think that blame would fall on the president in the case of the federal budget and the Illinois legislature in the case of Illinois because Democrats have super-majorities in both houses of the Illinois legislature. Am I being unfair to Democrats? I see it as expecting more from them.
I have been wondering about this. If the Illinois constitution requires a balanced budget, what happens if the governor signs an unbalanced budget? Do the governor and state legislature get a stern talking to and/or sent to bed without supper? If nothing, blatant malfeasance seems worse. An honestly corrupt politician is at least discreet or not blatant.
(I did not put this under the Who Gets the Blame Post? because I did not want to threadjack. If you think it would be better over there, you can move it and clean-up this part.)
I have too many tabs open. I meant to move it to another thread.
I suppose a third option is that nobody gets blamed because most people don’t care. Illinois is not operating with a budget because the Courts appear to have concluded that most spending is mandated with or without a budget, and I think that federal spending has similar mandates. So government shutdowns/impasses effect a relatively small group, mainly government workers/contractors and dependents.
If the GOP holds the House and Senate, the Democrat gets blamed. If the Dems hold the House and Senate, the Dems get blamed. At least you are consistent. In the case of Illinois, I agree with you. In the federal case, it is kind of a draw. I guess you could look at vote totals. If Obama drew more votes that the sitting congressmen, which I believe to be the case, then they should bear the majority of the blame.
My question is one of reasonableness, steve. The reason I think that the Illinois legislature should get the blame here is that I think that the governor is behaving reasonably but the legislature is not.
Maybe I’m misreading the situation at the federal level but it seems to me that keeping the federal government open for business with a temporary spending bill is more reasonable than shutting it down because it’s a temporary spending bill. There are unreasonable aspects to both positions but of the two I think that the president’s is less reasonable. What do you think?
I honestly don’t care who racked up more votes. The president won his election as did each Congressman.
Obama just signed the temporary spending bill. He says he won’t sign another. In this case is it really unreasonable for the POTUS to press for a real budget? The GOP wanted to govern, so govern. Wont happen as it would require compromise and they can’t do that. Personally, I think he will cave and would bet on the GOP leadership reaching the same conclusion.
Steve
“The GOP wanted to govern, so govern. Wont happen as it would require compromise and they can’t do that.”
This is the irony of political interpretation from different POVs, as I see much of the governmental turmoil, the lack of compromise, or even listening to the wisdom of those who see things differently as being generated by the WH.
Granted the GOP has an aversion to take overt stands against the president, least they be called “radically right wing” or racists. But, even if they did conservatively “govern,” turning in a budget which leaned on some of the president’s domestic legacy or policies, he would veto it. The government would shut down. The president would then get on his bully pulpit, railing against those who didn’t create a budget he could eagerly sign, while selectively closing symbolic venues that would create public outrage.
Consequently, I think republicans have a greater chance of reaping blame should they sow a budget the president doesn’t sign, even if he “technically” would be the one shutting down the government.
As for me, I think that holding the budget hostage to cutting off funding for Planned Parenthood is excessive, to say the least. It’s why I think the term “Right Bolsheviks” is applicable to a good part of today’s Republican Party.
For the president to press for a budget that isn’t a temporary spending bill is reasonable. Refusing to sign would have been less reasonable. I guess that’s my point. Just because the other side is being unreasonable is no justification for being unreasonable yourself.
?
As a government employee, who already spent too much time prepping for a possible shutdown before the Boehner resignation, I would blame both parties. Predictably, I think the blame will settle on partisan lines but as an non (or even anti-) partisan, I would give them all the middle finger. Given that most of the US is increasingly identifying as independent, I would guess that blame would be spread with a broad brush.
?
I see the republicans posturing their beliefs in words but not actions. Most R politicians see imposing stances, as was taken by Newt Gingrich in the 90’s, as being either too controversial or impolite. Consequently, they cave at the end of most disputes with this current president. For those of you who do not see this as being the case, name some instances where Obama folded his hand and capitulated to republican demands.
“But, even if they did conservatively “govern,†turning in a budget which leaned on some of the president’s domestic legacy or policies, he would veto it.”
Exactly. You don’t want to govern, which would mean compromise, you want to rule. Governing would require turning in a budget that Obama would sign, which means compromising.
Steve
“For those of you who do not see this as being the case, name some instances where Obama folded his hand and capitulated to republican demands.”
The sequester. He agreed to significant cuts in spending and got no tax increases. Afghanistan. He gave in to GOP demands to increase our involvement. He might have done this anyway, but the pressure from the neon right, the ones who run GOP foreign policy, made it certain. Obamacare. He adopted a plan that was essentially Romneycare which was pretty much the GOP plan when Clinton was in office.
Now, I understand this does not meet your requirements. You want capitulation, your word not mine. That is why it is clear you have no interest in governing. You don’t want to compromise, you want the other side to capitulate.
Steve