Be prepared, anything is on the table now, they will stop at nothing to remain in power.

"The current theory is far more radical, and it is dangerous, no matter which party holds the White House. In any crisis, it allows power to flow to the President; as crisis recedes, future Presidents tend not to give it back."

source

They won’t go quietly...

(By Special Counsel Robert Mueller)

GOP has the power to bypass the democrats with the nuclear option

The power is in the hands of the GOP for a shutdown.

for changes in the budget, in revenue (taxes), and in the debt... But it can't be used for appropriations, which is what the CR is.

Good summary - https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/introduction-to-budget-reconciliation

Byrd Rule - https://web.archive.org/web/20101202021810/http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/RL30862.pdf (PDF)

Original Congressional Budget Act of 1974 - https://web.archive.org/web/20101202021810/http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/RL30862.pdf (PDF) - I believe the section that the rules were based on was Sect. 300 (pg 10 of the PDF) and this original Act has been amended multiple times over the years for various things.

Why did you leave out "spending"?

https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=y356Wv3jM96ujAOYrIzICw&q=senate+reconciliation+uses&oq=senate+reconciliation+uses&gs_l=psy-ab.3...4908.11276.0.13577.27.17.0.9.9.0.266.2376.0j5j7.12.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..6.20.2188.0..0j0i20i264k1j0i67k1j0i131k1j0i3k1j0i22i30k1.0.lecaCot6pBA

Reconciliation is a legislative process of the United States Congress that allows expedited passage of certain budgetary legislation on spending, revenues, and the federal debt limit with a simple majority vote in both the House (218 votes) and Senate (51 votes).

"Spending" (which relates to "obligations" ) defines WHAT the "revenue" (tax money and might also include borrowed money or "debt" ) is anticipated to be used for (which is itemized in your BUDGET) and the "appropriations" are the ACTUAL FUNDS that are authorized (via legislation) to be set aside (pulled out of the Treasury) and apportioned to the agencies for that spending. It is a 2-part process.

Think of it like this - you make a shopping list (your "spending" list) and then you need to go to the bank and pull out enough money to put in your wallet to actually make those purchases ("funding" ). The list is of things you want to "spend" money on but you need to actually "set aside" money to bring with you to do that.

I am a 30+ year now-retired fed who has taken many appropriations law courses.

Direct from the Constitution -

a fountain of information... you're so smart!

Thanks, BRDS

Ha! I know the whole budget and appropriations is as confusing as hell but anyone working as a fed learns about it real quick (and it had become a required part of the annual mandatory Ethics training in my agency - "ethics" being something completely lost on those currently in the WH ).

The entire republican party does not understand?

Your words: "But it can't be used for appropriations, which is what the CR is."

It's being called a "spending plan".

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/21/mcconnell-opposes-shutdown-nuclear-option-trump-urged-in-tweet.html

"The move would enable Republicans to approve a spending plan with only a simple majority instead of 60 votes, which requires Democratic support."

Republicans are saying they don't want to use the nuclear option. They are not saying that they cannot use it.

-------------

https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=QAl7Wr2HL8Wc0wK5gYeoAg&q=budget+shutdown+nuclear+option&oq=budget+shutdown+nuclear+option&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i160k1.5012.15286.0.16416.33.29.1.2.2.0.218.3394.0j22j1.23.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..7.25.3268.0..0j46j35i39k1j0i131i20i264k1j0i46k1j0i20i264k1j0i131k1j0i22i30k1j0i22i10i30k1j33i22i29i30k1.0.mWRck5ipi7Y

you would see the caveat of even attempting to do it. I.e., they would have to pass a new budget resolution to reset the number of times -

I.e., in order to do this without the above, the Senate would have to change the rules (which requires a vote). I.e.,



And since the Senate is now 51 - 49, the odds of being able to manufacture the environment to use a nuclear option (for anything), is slim to none - particularly after they did it to get Gorsuch in.

And your relying on the fucking tweet from the dumbass in the WH is breathtaking.

"And your relying on the fucking tweet from the dumbass in the WH is breathtaking."

There are many articles in those links, not just that one tweet.

The entire republican party seems to go against your superior knowledge.

If they are wrong, so be it.

and were voted into office to essentially destroy the "establishment" and how it functioned. I.e., the are a "Koch Brothers' Special" dished up to disrupt the day to day functioning of government. As you can see with the bullshit that some of them are doing right now (e.g., the whole House & Senate Intelligence Committee fiascos), that should give you a clue.

The fact that they have not even done appropriations for the military - which was something they always used to focus on and pass - even if they didn't do any for other departments (and rolled them into Omnibus bills), should be a clue. The fact that the ultimate "pork barrel" subsidy legislation for the GOP rural/corporate farmers (the FARM Bill), was allowed to lapse back in 2012 and they barely got it going again in 2013 (and it will be up for renewal this year), should be a clue.

Over the past several years - and notably once the GOP took over the Senate, they have essentially thrown out what is known as "regular order". They have either refused to have any committee meetings and hearings at all, and when they have had hearings, they have tried to or completely shut out Democrats during those few sessions, and then have turned their focus on any Democratic administration (even when no longer in office) and continue to manufacture crises after crisis.

Lest we forget that before there was a Gowdy for Oversight, there was the ass Issa, who demonstrates what I'm talking about here (from 2014) -

So no, don't go by their bullshit. Go back and watch some vintage CSPAN archives (they archived most if not all of the sessions and committee hearings in Congress - back to ~1980). What is going on right now is NOT normal.

First you said: "They can only use it 3 times in a year"

Then: "you would see the caveat of even attempting to do it. I.e., they would have to pass a new budget resolution to reset the number of times - "

We are only about 40 days into the year.

What 3 times have they used it so far?

The whole mess about doing a "nuclear option" is to CHANGE their "rule" so they have no more filibusters for anything INCLUDING budgetary/financial related legislation. Otherwise they are restricted to how many times they can use this process based on their rule.

And to refresh - they just used it to do that big ass tax cuts for the wealthy monstrosity.

Part of the problem here is that they haven't passed a budget (that is the "budget resolution" being referenced) and the latest talk is that they are looking at doing a 2-year budget - which would include this fiscal year of 2018 (which started back in October 2017) and would also include fiscal year 2019 (which starts this-coming October 2018). THEN they would create additional legislation to apply the appropriations consistent to that budget.

And in terms of the federal government, we are 130 days "into the year" because for appropriations purposes, the fiscal year begins October 1st. Alternately here in PA, our "fiscal year" begins July 1st.

It is really "3 categories". If they pass a bill that covers all 3 "categories", then they are DONE with just ONE bill. If they pass a bill that covers 2 "categories", then they only have 1 more bill left in a category that wasn't covered under the other bill.

If I'm not mistaken, this (tax cuts bill) dealt with the "revenue" category - i.e., changing the amount of taxes (which means less "revenue" ). So that was one bill so far.

They just announced a bipartisan agreement for a budget & debt ceiling proposal, so if they attempted to force that through reconciliation (although it doesn't seem to be needed if it is "bipartisan" ), then THAT would knock out 2 more "categories" and they would be done (again, unless they changed the rule).

What 3 'categories' have they used it so far in the 130 days?

so it's obvious that you aren't getting it. It is still not related to appropriations.

Think of it this way - the "3" categories are associated with providing more detail about a budget document (which is its own legislation). I.e., the "budget" resolution is normally pretty generic and essentially sets the limits for how much you can (or plan to) spend and on what (in a broad sense).

So in simple terms, when you create a "budget" for your household, you look at -

1.) Itemized list of things that you need to spend money on (bills, clothing, food, etc) = Anticipated "expenditures"
2.) Source of the money to pay for #1 (pay check, savings) = "Revenue"
3.) Source of money in case you don't have enough to pay for #1 right away (credit cards, cash loans) = "Debt"

And when you evaluate your financial situation, you may then say - I can only spend "x" amount per month - that is my limit (your "budget" ).

So in the case of the government, when they draft a budget bill, they (I think this current one that is being discussed) have defined a limit for spending at about $1.8 trillion (I think the Budget Control Act of 2013 fixed the yearly budget to $1.5 trillion and they have to pass legislation to change that figure, which is what they are doing here). They also know that this spending is going to go towards all the various federal departments and agencies.... so they will designate chunks of that budgeted $1.8 trillion towards each entity.

NOW... if they want to further itemize and/or make changes to that budget, they use the "conference report" (budget reconciliation) and can either -

1.) Modify/update the list of "expenditures"
2.) Modify/update the "funding source" (revenue)
3.) Modify/update any intention to take on more debt to pay for the expenditures and by how much

To do this, they can do it in SEPARATE bills (i.e., the "3 separate bill" thing) -OR- any combo of a single bill for 1 thing and the other 2 things rolled into a single bill to equal "2 total" bills -OR- they can roll all 3 types of modifications into a single bill.

The thing about the "3" limit has to do with THEIR rules - You keep arguing about this. "3" is the MAX but to have the 3, they have to be narrowed to individual categories. If any of the 3 categories have been covered either separately or combined in some other legislation using the reconciliation rule, then they are DONE for the fiscal year and would not be able to invoke the reconciliation rule again to pass this type of legislation (with the exception of creating a brand NEW budget resolution - which is indicated in the link to the actual law that I provided). In most cases, they pass ONE budget bill per year (and in some cases, it may be good for more than one year). They don't normally pass multiple budget bills each year - but of course now we are no longer in "normal" times where they didn't want to pass any budget bill at all.

They already used 1 category (revenue) to pass their tax bill. So normally that would leave a max of 2 more. BUT if they pass a NEW "budget resolution" (which is what is being reported with this 2-year budget deal), THEN the 3-bill limit starts anew - focused on THAT new budget bill.

So they have used 1 of their potential 3 so far until such time if/when they pass a NEW budget bill, and then they can start all over modifying that. If it's not passed, then they are still in limbo with only a max of 2 more that are do-able.

And in normal "bipartisan" times, reconciliation just isn't used at all. They have only started doing it mainly since the '90s to ram stuff through (which prompted the addition of the Byrd Rule to try to keep policy riders off a reconciliation bill).

Capiche?

Your words: "They can only use it 3 times in a year"

If it is not applicable, then there would be no reason for you to mention or 'explain' the three time limit.

You prattle on and on trying to obfuscate the issue by quantity of words.

You do a great job of trying to dazzle with your bullpoop and impress us with your smarts.

And the republican party does not agree with you.

The GOP says they do not want to use the nuclear option, not that they cannot.

From post #6 message -

Yet you continued to argue nonsense in multiple posts after that indicating your complete confusion, including google search links with other irrelevant stuff, so I can't help you further. Until you learn the difference between "budget" legislation and "appropriations" legislation, then you will forever be in the dark. I hope that one day you go take some appropriations law courses. They are pretty intense but maybe it will help you learn some things.

A lot of it inapplicable to make yourself look smart.

Congressional leaders move closer to broad budget deal
Trump: ‘If we have to shut it down … let’s shut it down’

Ben Jacobs in Washington

@Bencjacobs
Tue 6 Feb 2018 16.47 EST

Congressional leaders on Tuesday moved closer to a broad budget deal to avoid another government shutdown, while Donald Trump signaled he would welcome another lapse in funding if he does not get his way on immigration.

Speaking at the White House, Trump appeared to welcome a shutdown without Democrats yielding to his tough demands on immigration and billions in extra funding for border security. “I’d love to see a shutdown if we can’t get this stuff taken care of,” said Trump.

Trump’s remarks came two days before government funding was set to expire on 8 February and as congressional leaders said they were making progress towards a broader deal that would not only keep the government open but roll back some previous limits imposed on government spending.

The Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, said: “We’re on the way to getting an agreement and getting it very soon.”

More:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/feb/06/trump-government-shutdown-democrats-immigration

slimey lazy ass stuffing himself with grease and making sure no one is poisoning him.