Impending Shutdown of DHS

[s_stabeler]

That's another thing- since WHEN did they make filibustering merely a matter of saying "i'm filibustering this bill" and then it magically needs a supermajority to pass? Filibustering SHOULD be difficult. It's meant to be an extreme technique, to show someone's dedication to opposing a bill. It's not meant to be a way for a minority to be a pain in the ass to a majority. (and when it was the budget issue last year, it WAS a minority holding up the thing)

Also annoying as fuck is when they promptly say "well, if Obama had given into our demands, the budget would have passed, so it's his fault your family aren't getting paid"- I'm sorry, but that is the logic of bullies. " It wouldn't have happened if they'd agree to our demands, despite the fact that they have been voted on umpteen million times already"

edit- I should make ti clear that if a party was honest, and said "We know this is hard for you, but we ask that you put up with it, because the result if what we want doesn't ahppen will be X, which si worse" then I'd actually have more respect for them. But when they try to pass the blame for their childish antics...

[mjr]

Though honestly, i think filibustering should be illegal on supply bills. ( aka, if a bill is to keep the government running, make it simple-majority for cloture.)

Not a bad thought. But I don't think there should be "riders" for funding bills, either.

That said, if you're talking filibusters, I think it needs to be "old school" style. You have to stay on the floor the whole time, and you have to keep talking the whole time.

Take the "easy" out of filibustering, and see how often it happens.

[mjr]

Though they've smartened up somewhat and are only holding the DHS hostage instead of the entire country.

Unfortunately, in Congress, and it seems for the past few Presidents, the word "compromise" means "give me what I want, or you're an obstructionist". You and I both know this.

It's like that scene in the Big Bang Theory when Sheldon and Barry both want the same office.

Sheldon's version of compromise is "I'll take the office, and you'll find a way to be OK with it."

The problem with "fixing" the immigration issue in the U.S. is that nobody really wants to fix it. If you think they do, I have a bridge to sell you.

Here's a great example. You know that girl that the President was supposed to have at the State of the Union who would benefit from the DREAM act? She was here illegally, and NOBODY thought to ask her (since, at the time, she was, or would soon be a legal adult) if she had taken the Citizenship test, or if she was planning to.

The SIMPLE solution there is to do away with the DREAM act, and put a simple policy in place: You want college, especially with "in state" tuition? Become a citizen FIRST.

Wanna fix immigration? HEAVY fines for those who hire "undocumented" workers. Implement eVerify across the board. Demand dries up.

But the immigration issue seems to be one that the President WON'T compromise on. Isn't that part of the problem?

[Gravekeeper]

I'm just saying it makes it harder for someone to point a finger at one side and say, "I'm mad that they're doing it!" when your side is doing it, too.

Didn't we cover why "Both sides are bad" doesn't work as an argument any more in another thread? Both sides do routinely go back and forth inserting things into bills, typically as a means of negotiation between opposing positions. As a tit for tat thing. I'll give you x if you give us y.

However, only the Republicans stated from the moment Obama was elected that they would oppose everything he did and have been doing so ever since. To the complete detriment of the country. As Andara mentioned, they do this to grand stand on issues they already lost. Not to actually accomplish anything. Its just political theatre for their mouth breathing base.

There have been funding shut down showoffs in the past under both Republican and Dem presidents ( With the most being on Reagan's watch and typically over defence spending ). But these were usually over hotly debated and actually important topics.

Under Obama, the GOP pulled a funding shut down stand off and near destroyed the US economy again to try and repeal the Affordable Care Act for the umpteenth time. Now they're doing the same thing again but with Obama's immigration reform. Though they've smartened up somewhat and are only holding the DHS hostage instead of the entire country.

There's no precedent for the level of obstructionist fuckery the GOP has lowered itself too under Obama. Nor the rhetoric that's so deranged and divorced from reality they've basically become a caricature of themselves.

Even with a GOP controlled house they still can't govern let alone behave like adults.

[mjr]

This is nothing but a distraction. Democrats sometimes do similar things.

What's good for the goose, is good for the gander, or so I'm told. I'm not saying it makes it right. I'm just saying it makes it harder for someone to point a finger at one side and say, "I'm mad that they're doing it!" when your side is doing it, too.

That's like the old one "But officer, why did you pull ME over? Everyone else was speeding, too!"

All that will happen is it will go from "get re-elected" to "get a cushy lobbying job." Their own short-sighted idea of their best interests will be served regardless of what their long-term plans might be.

This is why there also needs to be lobbying reform.

It was done as a comedy routine, but I think the late Robin Williams (and I think others did the same or a similar bit) was onto something when he suggested Congress dress like a race car driver. They could have "sponsorships" (i.e. donors and lobbying money) on their suits.

I would be for lobbying reform. Congress SHOULD be under a microscope. If a Congressperson or Senator gets "comped" a cruise, don't you feel it's your right to know about it? Especially if it may affect a policy that affects you?

EVERY lobbying dollar/perk/expense should be noted. As well as who it came from, who it was for, and what it was.

But that's just my opinion. Your's may differ.

[s_stabeler]

most basically, while Democrats have indeed forced shutdowns in the past, that was due to fiscal reasons. ( aka, they disagreed with an item in the spending bill in question.) The republicans are suing spending bills to re-fight issues they've already lost. (I have no real issue with the republicans bringing repeal bills to Congress- if you think a piece of legislation is unfair, feel free to try to repeal it. What I have a problem with is when political issues are tied to fiscal ones- or in other words, don't hold the country to ransom because you want your political ideas instituted. You fiscal ideas, fine. Though honestly, i think filibustering should be illegal on supply bills. ( aka, if a bill is to keep the government running, make it simple-majority for cloture.)

[Andara Bledin]

Didn't Democrats do similar things, and then claim Republicans were being "obstructionists" when the bills either didn't pass or Boener wouldn't put them up for a vote?

This is nothing but a distraction. Democrats sometimes do similar things. Republicans have done so constantly for the past 6 years. It's like they're trying to set a record for least effective Congress for two separate decades in a row.

And in a lot of cases, I think, Congress will then go from "I'm going to do what I think will get me re-elected" to "I'm going to do what I think is the right thing to do."

All that will happen is it will go from "get re-elected" to "get a cushy lobbying job." Their own short-sighted idea of their best interests will be served regardless of what their long-term plans might be.

[mjr]

trying to insert a repeal of his immigration reform into what should a routine funding bill.

Didn't Democrats do similar things, and then claim Republicans were being "obstructionists" when the bills either didn't pass or Boener wouldn't put them up for a vote?

Which means you have these Tea Party Republicans with so little understanding of how their own government functions that they think grandstanding bullshit like this is how the system is suppose to correct itself.

I'd say that applies to most of Congress, though. I'd like to see an effort put forth where each member of Congress receives a copy of the Constitution of the United States, because I doubt a lot of them have read it. Heck, I doubt my local Representative has read it.

I'd also like to see one of two things put in place:

1. Each congressperson must sign a sworn affidavit before they vote stating that they believe that the bill is constitutional/unconstitutional.

2. Each sponsor of the bill must include a "preamble" of sorts stating WHY the bill is constitutional, citing article, section, etc. and supporting law. BEFORE the bill is voted on.

The biggest problem with Congress is that "power corrupts". This is part of the reason why the President is term-limited. Set term limits for Congress, and some of this will be fixed.

And in a lot of cases, I think, Congress will then go from "I'm going to do what I think will get me re-elected" to "I'm going to do what I think is the right thing to do."

[Gravekeeper]

Well, currently they passed a one week temporary measure that'll keep funding going. Unbelievable that they fight over how long they can delay this instead of just getting a bill done.

Well, if they don't keep forcing the poison pill they have to admit that maybe Obama isn't a Constitution destroying tyrant. Problem is 52 Republicans actually drank their own Koolaid while trying to sell it to the general public.

Remember, they've spent years pushing the bullshit mantra that Obama is both a total dictator in the US but also somehow a completely weak, ineffectual pussy abroad. All the while obstructing everything so they can blame the resulting mess on the administration.

The problem is they sold the Koolaid so well that enough people sincerely believed it to elect other idiots that sincerely believed it ( Tea Party Republicans ). Now you have 52 of them sitting there so self deluded they actually think Obama is a tyrant and they're standing up to Hitler 2.0 by trying to insert a repeal of his immigration reform into what should a routine funding bill.

Which if you think about it is profoundly terrifying for the future of the country. Since if Obama actually was as bad as the GOP says he would have been impeachable years ago. But he isn't, so he can't be impeached. Which means you have these Tea Party Republicans with so little understanding of how their own government functions that they think grandstanding bullshit like this is how the system is suppose to correct itself. As opposed to impeachment, the very mechanism created for the situation they claim/think exists.

The GOP's political theatre worked so well that there's a large group of idiots that don't even realize its a play despite being picked by the director for the part.

[Greenday]

Well, currently they passed a one week temporary measure that'll keep funding going. Unbelievable that they fight over how long they can delay this instead of just getting a bill done.

[s_stabeler]

it's not a bad idea, but you'd need to be absolutely certain of the amount of hand sanitiser you'd need in the event of an outbreak.

but my point was never that the DHS does everything correctly. Do thye waste money? yes, although it's debateable how much they waste compared to other departments. ( currently, the Army has such an excess of tanks that they could just take a brand-new one out of storage every time one gets damaged in any way or needs maintenance, and they wouldn't run out before they'd be introducing a new tank anyway. ( and it's the ARMY saying they don't need any more tanks, by the way) Congress more-or-less said they have to keep buying more. Anywya, my point is that the core function of the DHS ( co-ordinating anti-terror efforts) is a good one- it just needs reform to concentrate on that.

as for the list, some of those are pretty bad, some they might have a point. ( 2nd amendment rallies are usually of people who don't trust the government, and are armed. Can you see where that may concern the government?)

[wolfie]

IIRC, it's more a case that the manufacturer won't guarantee they work after that long- and in a pandemic, you want to be 100% sure your precautions work.

but seriously, it ISN'T a waste that some of that stuff has gone bad

on the other hand, it DOES mean they need to keep better track of expiry dates.

Of course, PROPER planning would have involved consultations with another government department that used such supplies on a regular basis, and arranging a cost-sharing agreement to rotate stocks. Let's use the hand sanitizer as an example.

From what I've heard, hospitals use a lot of hand sanitizer. The VA has quite a number of hospitals/extended care facilities. Assume a 5 year "best before" date for hand sanitizer.

If DHS arranged with the VA, chipping in (say) 10% of the cost, to have new purchases of sanitizer shipped to DHS's warehouses with an equal quantity (still having at least a year to run on its "best before" date) shipped from the warehouses to VA facilities which would use it over the next 6 months in the normal course of operations, the VA would save 10% on their purchases of hand sanitizer while DHS would have fresh stocks for 10% of the cost that would be involved in tossing expired stuff and buying fresh.

[Gravekeeper]

Oh wow, Republicans voted down their own bill. They're eating each other. They're fracturing between Republicans who still feel shame and Republicans who are batshit crazy and will ruin the country to try and prove a point. The crazies are rebelling against the rest of the party.

52 Tea Party shithawks calling themselves the "Freedom Caucus" ( seriously ). They passed a 1 week funding bill for the DHS to avoid a total implosion but the Freedom Caucus shit hawks not only won't back down from the poison pill bill but are defending their actions.

"Some folks just have a harder time facing political reality than others," said Rep. Charlie Dent, R-Pa., speaking of other Republicans.

>.>

[Gravekeeper]

but seriously, it ISN'T a waste that some of that stuff has gone bad

Well, the problem was that the DHS could not demonstrate why it even needed all of these supplies to begin with or how it even intended to utilize them in the event of a pandemic. Basically, they were told to come up with a plan to handle a possible pandemic and they went "I don't know, lets just buy a shit ton of hand sanitizer and flu masks to make it look like we know what we're doing".

As was already mentioned, its just political / security theatre.

- X happens.
- Idiots with no qualifications ( congress ) tell Y to do something about it.
- Y has to do something about it to show congress.
- Y wastes money on pointless shit that doesn't help bout sounds good to unqualified morons ( congress ).
- Preferably while spending that money on supplies and contractors that benefit congress people's state or associates.
- Congress ( unqualified ) turns to the general public ( Unqualified ) and claims it did something about X.
- Rinse and repeat until you're out 20 billion in tax dollars.

Its just particularly problematic with the DHS because it was given such a wide mandate and put in charge of shit that routinely violates Constitutional rights and privacy laws. While individual dipshits within the organization use its power to oppress brown people and political opponents.

Some things DHS centers have labelled as threats to national security:
- Muslims. ( Texas )
- Mexican drug cartels being secretly trained by Hezbollah. ( Texas )
- Pro-life activists ( Wisconsin )
- Pro-choice activists ( Wisconsin )
- Environmental activists ( Pennsylvania )
- Tea Party activists ( Pennsylvania )
- Second Amendment rallies ( Pennsylvania )
- Anti-death penalty activists ( Maryland ) ( added to Federal terror database )
- Anti-war activists ( Maryland ) ( added to Federal terror database )
- Third party voters ( Missouri )
- Ron Paul supporters ( Missouri )
- The ACLU ( Tennessee )

Are they a statistical anomaly because they are rare or are they an anomaly because a lot of them keep getting stopped?

I have a magic rock I'd like to sell you. It keeps away lions. >.>

[s_stabeler]

Expired hand sanitizer? WTF? My understanding is that the active ingredient in the stuff is ethyl alcohol (minimum 60% by volume), and that's something that doesn't go bad. The only mode I can see where hand sanitizer deteriorates over time would be evaporation of the alcohol through a vapour-permeable bottle, but that would be obvious at a glance (sides of the bottle would have collapsed inward).

IIRC, it's more a case that the manufacturer won't guarantee they work after that long- and in a pandemic, you want to be 100% sure your precautions work.

but seriously, it ISN'T a waste that some of that stuff has gone bad ( though the improper storage IS)- you DON'T want to need to use disaster preparedness equipment. ( it's like with those AEDs that you sometimes see in case there is a heart attack nearby- ideally, they go to the end of their useful life never being necessary, but if they ever are, you'd be glad they are there.

on the other hand, it DOES mean they need to keep better track of expiry dates.