Did Schumer make the right decision in voting to pass the CR?

[Grinkle]

All of what follows is "in my opinion", so I don't have to insert if everywhere.

TLDR is I think Schumer did the right thing - indeed the only practical thing. He was the adult in the room and now he's being dragged for it.

If a shutdown happened with full Republican support of the CR in the house and Senate but not enough Dem support to call cloture in the Senate, Democrats would take full blame for it in view of more than half the country. The only way to get the government going again would be for Schumer to change position and eventually support the CR. The Republicans would not budge, all the political pressure would be falling on Senate Dems and eventually Schumer would need to concede and would have gotten absolutely nothing for the trouble.

Many of the parts of the government impacted by a shutdown are the very parts the Trump administration wants to eliminate anyway. DOGE would simply crack on, if not accelerate.

Government Shutdowns Q&A: Everything You Should Know | Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget

Discretionary funding for Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 will expire on March 14, and Congress has so far enacted zero of the 12 full-year appropriations bills to fund the government for FY 2025.

www.crfb.org

The Dem plan to stay united in House and Senate against the CR was predicated on the house Republicans not having enough votes to pass the CR anyway, it was anticipated that the narrative would be "Dems don't rescue the Republicans". It didn't turn out that way, though, and it seems the Dems had no plan B in case the Republicans did actually do what Johnson said they were going to do and pass the CR in the house. The Dems never had a plan for an actual shutdown in the first place - its was meant to be symbolic resistance.

The CR is Biden level spending anyway. I tried searching for a list of the said-to-be-disastrous riders that I have heard are in it, but I can't find them - if anyone has a reference, please post. I think its really ironic that right now we have Republicans united in continuing Biden era spending and Dems almost united in opposing it. I know that its much about where the money is being spent than how much money is being spent, but I do still see a lot of irony in this.

It may be that the Senate Dems need new leadership, but I hope this won't be reason Schumer goes. I think he saved all of us from a lot of pointless chaos, angst and inconvenience in avoiding a shutdown. I am very dissapointed in House Dem leadership for going after him.

 

[gleem]

The CR is Biden level spending anyway. I tried searching for a list of the said-to-be-disastrous riders that I have heard are in it, but I can't find them - if anyone has a reference, please post. I think its really ironic that right now we have Republicans united in continuing Biden era spending and Dems almost united in opposing it. I know that its much about where the money is being spent than how much money is being spent, but I do still see a lot of irony in this.

I started a thread after seeing some major pieces of the CR on TV. When I tried to find the specifics on the web I too could not find a breakdown. Why is that?

The Dems were between a "rock and a hard place". It is just a matter of how much political damage was incurred.
Let's hope the dem electorate sees the decision as acceptable.

 

[Grinkle]

Why is that?

Sigh - guess we have to do the long read if we really mean business. ;-)

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1968/text

 

[Grinkle]

Its dense. In general, not so amenable to picking out highlights and spotting delta's from prior status-quo.


I found this gem though - glad they remembered to include it.

(2) “Contingent Expenses of the Senate—Senators’ Official Personnel and Office Expense Account”, $607,400,000.

 

[placebo]

This site has some info.

What is Actually in the Continuing Resolution (CR) Passed by Congress

The House and Senate passed H.R. 1968, a Continuing Resolution (CR) to fund the federal government for six months while making significant cuts to domestic spending and increasing defense funding. …

the-energy-age.com

 

[Grinkle]

These are probably the provisions that generated the most Dem blowback.

• Give the Trump administration significantly more leeway to spend federal dollars without Congressional approval.
• Would prevent any member of Congress from attempting to terminate President Trump’s recent declaration of national emergencies over immigration and the U.S. border, which he has used to impose large, broad-based tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Say what you want about Pelosi, but no one can argue she wasn't an effective speaker for the dems. Pelosi thinks Schumer caved for nothing.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/18/pelosi-shivs-schumer-dont-give-away-anything-for-nothing-00237661

 

[Grinkle]

Pelosi thinks Schumer caved for nothing.

I expect Pelosi would have gotten her concessions or done political damage to the R's well ahead of this vote, and not let it come to a shutdown. She would have gotten something for congressional support of a CR, agreed, but there still would not have been a shutdown, imo. A big part of Schumer being painted into a corner is ineffective Dem leadership. I'm only arguing that a shutdown would have just done the Dems and the country more damage, given where Schumer found himself last week.

You can only move forward from where you are - even if where you are is your own doing.

 

[Grinkle]

Well, now we get to see how the other choice works out.

I think this is going to help advance the MAGA agenda in terms of political capital as I doubt Dems will get any concessions at the end of the day.

I think many of the parts of the government that actually shut down are the parts the administration would just as soon never re-open in any case. All the media (left and right) that I have heard discuss the shut down call the shut down parts of the government "non-essential". How long before Trump uses that communicate about what has been shut down and advocates for keeping most of it from ever re-opening?

If he needs to pay some folks who are on deferred paychecks because he actually wants them doing what they are doing, he'll likely declare a national emergency and pay them. If anyone sues and it even gets to SCOTUS they'll likely allow it.

This strikes me as pointless, and worse, cutting off ones nose to spite ones face.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Repubs own the gov, it's on them.

 

[Grinkle]

it's on them

To me, one side should only obstruct if they have a reasonable chance of getting a better deal later on. Whether or not one blames Republicans for not negotiating (I agree that is a valid perspective) its an objective fact that Dems are withholding votes to prevent the current "deal" from passing in hopes of getting something better later on.

I could be wrong about who will gain politically from this, perhaps independants will lay the blame on Republicans at the end of the day. I expect a lot of that subjective calculus depends on whether Democrats get any concessions, and like I said in my prior post, I'm sceptical that will happen. I think the clean CR passes in another 6-8 weeks, and I think at that time the MAGA leadership will be wishing the Democrats would just continue with-holding their votes for it (I think MAGA leadership prefers a state of shut down).

 

[placebo]

The Democrats need to put up a fight even if it's doomed to failure to signal to voters that they're willing to fight for them. The ideal outcome politically would be if Trump stands firm and gives no concessions. When the people feel the effects of the Republican's policies, the Democrats can then place all of the blame on them. "We tried, but the Republicans wouldn't budge."

 

[Grinkle]

@placebo @Greg Bernhardt WP poll indicates that so far it is playing out as you see it. I hope that continues.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2025/government-shutdown-trump-congress-poll/