Congressional Democrats and Republicans have eight days to strike a funding deal before the government goes into a partial shutdown.
  • Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson announced a new temporary government funding proposal with key amendments from the original bill he put forward earlier this month.
  • The new proposal goes against Donald Trump’s wishes and makes some concessions to Democrats.
  • The new bill would fund the government through Dec. 20 and does not include any part of the SAVE Act, the Trump-backed election security proposal that would require people to show proof of citizenship to register as a voter.
  • The previous version of Johnson’s bill, which Trump preferred, was attached to the SAVE Act and would have funded the government through March 2025.

🗳️ Register to vote: https://vote.gov/

  • Funderpants @lemmy.ca
    76·
    7 days ago

    Pretty transparent to have the funding expire just after the election, gives republicans a few weeks to decide if they care about the deficit (Dem elected) or not (republican elected).

    • cymbal_king@lemmy.world
      18·
      7 days ago

      Nah, this was a concession both Democrats and Senate Republicans were asking for. They hope to have a full budget deal finished before a new administration so there’s a clean slate for either incoming president

      • 2piradians@lemmy.worldEnglish
        19·
        7 days ago

        I see the logic in what you’re saying.

        But I’ve also seen some worry that if Trump loses (and he damn well better lose), when the CR expires about a month before Harris’ inauguration, this possibly leads to government gridlock, thereby emboldening another January 6 attempt.

        Personally I expect another J6 whether the government is funded or not, but I’d feel better about things if it was funded.

        • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
          7·
          7 days ago

          Honestly I just hope Biden mobilizes some divisions near and around the Capitol, they dont need to be deployed immediately hell that can harass the local McDonald’s for all it matters they just need to be ready.

          • Monument@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
            15·
            7 days ago

            I read a comment a few weeks ago from someone that is from around that area. Between J6 and the inauguration, apparently a bunch of concrete barriers sprung up and there were military personnel stationed throughout checkpoints at the Capitol complex.
            Biden is many things, but he and his cronies are not intentionally keeping security weak in hopes that a coup will happen, nor will he or the other two people that can activate them hesitate to deploy the National Guard.

            J6 was not a generalized failure of government processes or a mistake from lack of planning. There are standing plans, materiel, and personnel in place. The state of the Capitol and its defenses were a choice — an intentional failure, to open the doors for a coup.

  • PassingThrough@lemmy.worldEnglish
    43·
    7 days ago

    Y’all need to get a word in with your representatives that what’s needed is legislation preventing budget bills from containing anything other than budgets.

    That would solve this problem real quick. It’s been sounding stupider and stupider using the budget meeting to force unpopular agendas down throats or else the government is held hostage.

    I think it would fit the bill if budgeting was held up over allocations, one side wants more border spending, one side wants more educational spending, etc, that would make sense but “allow us to attach this whole other unrelated law to declare the sky is actually green(which also contains a tag along that I get to be emperor), or nobody gets paid” is just ridiculous.

    • lemmydripzdotz456@lemmy.world
      10·
      7 days ago

      Yes, but also: Everything the government does costs money because someone has to make sure it’s being done. This stupid SAVE thing would have cost money to enforce and, therefore, it could be argued that it is related to the budget. That’s not a a very good argument, but it’s enough to slow down the process while they argue over it.

      • PassingThrough@lemmy.worldEnglish
        6·
        7 days ago

        An excellent argument to be made when arguing about the

        STop Unrelated Crap Killing budgets act.

        STUCK(b) Act. See? Even has a cool acronym.

        And if they take a few dozen sessions deliberating over it while the government keeps funding and running on previous bills, that’s OK. That’s the point. There should not be an easy path to leverage government’s ability function to force a vote in your favor, bypassing traditional debate, compromise, and processes.