The filibuster is expected to go through the night, against fast-tracked nominees by the Trump Administration. Booker’s protest appears to be in response to a recent wave of Republican nominees being fast-tracked through the confirmation process, many of whom are aligned with Trump’s second-term agenda and Elon Musk’s increasingly influential role in federal advisory circles.
Quiet simple, because there’s a bunch of nutjob republicans that want to cut everything possible yet are willing to settle for temporary stopgap measures. They nearly killed the CR and would have had trump not explicitly pressured them to pass the bill.
Passing a full funding bill would have been harder to get the nutjobs to sign on. Passing a dirty CR with explicit cuts and power grants to the president, however, was enough to win them over.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5178543-house-conservatives-working-toward-cr-after-meeting-with-trump/
Again, the schumer “A shutdown will give trump more power” messaging is a lie. Trump had an active role in getting this bill passed.
So you agree that it’s temporary? Isn’t that the point you challenged?
Again, it is not a lie. EO 14210 provides Trump with the ability to terminate non-essential government employees if any of three conditions are not met, and funding is one of them.
Read it for yourself: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/don-t-use-shutdown-plans-to-slash-the-federal-workforce
FFS I’ve already covered this while talking about the bill. It had riders ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rider_(legislation) ) that gave the admin addition discretion over the budget. Those riders are not temporary.
And I already covered EOs if you bothered to read.
You are now purposely being obtuse because you don’t want to accept that schumer did something moronic.
He helped the republicans pass a bill that Trump wanted them to pass. End of story.
I understand the riders aren’t temporary, but the budget itself is. That means there will be another chance at a shutdown in September. I don’t need you to explain how this works. I need you to explain why you think it’s a better choice to give Trump the ability to indiscriminately terminate non-essential government employees than to have control of the budget. It’s your opinion that I find elusive, not the facts.
Who do you think has control of the budget? Do you really think that by rolling over and giving Trump everything he wants now Schumer will somehow have control of anything in September?
And why do you think passing the CR will stop Trump and Musk from terminating anyone they want? They’re still doing that.
AN EXECUTIVE ORDER IS NOT LEGALLY BINDING.
TRUMP SIGNING ONE DOESN’T MAGICALLY GRANT HIM LEGAL POWER TO INDISCRIMINATELY TERMINATE EMPLOYEES.
Your opinion that an EO is somehow more scary than a bill that grants the powers of the EO to the president is what’s entirely insane.
You aren’t concerned with facts as you’ve been corrected not just by me but multiple other people throughout this comment chain. You just want to believe schumer didn’t do something stupid.
I wholeheartedly wanted to understand your opinion. I’m no fan of Schumer. Everyone withdrew but him and Gillibrand in the primary, so I didn’t have much of a choice. Regardless, he’s my Senator, and I message and call his office often. I appreciate your point about the EO. At the end of the day, it really is no different than the others being challenged in court. That’s a valid point I’ll be taking up with his office later today. Thank you for taking the time to explain your perspective. Sorry if I frustrated you.
ALL spending bills are “temporary” in that they don’t provide unlimited funds for forever. The CR doesn’t say, “give as much money as is needed until September.” It says “we allocated $XXXX”. And since we know how to predict how much money the government spends, we know that amount of money will run out in September.
This is the same way it works if they passed an appropriations bill. The only difference is that they based spending levels on the previous spending bills rather than on a budget bill.