That's precisely the point that is key to understand here.
For now, the law says that these agencies have to remain open, that they cannot massively fire government employees, etc. That allows Democrats and others to constantly file lawsuits against the government - and win.
With the new CR, most of these agencies will remain legal, so it will remain illegal for Musk to shut them down and the courts will continue to force the government to rehire those whose contracts were wrongfully ended.
This totally changed without CR. Obviously, when you look at the content of the bill, no Democrat would EVER want to support it. So those who support VOTING for it do so for a different reason: without CR, the government will not have the FUNDING necessary to keep these government agencies going, and without legal funding, we cannot force Musk to keep them open by going to the courts. That's because it's Congress and Congress only that has the constitutional power to "make laws" - in this case, a budget law. No budget law means de facto NO law to protect these agencies and their employees. So we would no longer be able to go to court and win and force Musk to keep the agencies open.
This is why NOT voting for the CR means caving to Musk/Trump (because they WANT to close all agencies), in this case, whereas voting FOR the CR means legally FORCING Trump to keep all agencies open, you see?
I understood that this funding CR would endorse the whole impoundment/sequestering concept and thus counteract or undermine everything you say here. And I haven’t read the CR myself. Can you say this isn’t so?
Um... They've been destroying agencies illegally. Why would they care about doing it legally?? Anything that Trump wants, we want to block it.
That's precisely the point that is key to understand here.
For now, the law says that these agencies have to remain open, that they cannot massively fire government employees, etc. That allows Democrats and others to constantly file lawsuits against the government - and win.
With the new CR, most of these agencies will remain legal, so it will remain illegal for Musk to shut them down and the courts will continue to force the government to rehire those whose contracts were wrongfully ended.
This totally changed without CR. Obviously, when you look at the content of the bill, no Democrat would EVER want to support it. So those who support VOTING for it do so for a different reason: without CR, the government will not have the FUNDING necessary to keep these government agencies going, and without legal funding, we cannot force Musk to keep them open by going to the courts. That's because it's Congress and Congress only that has the constitutional power to "make laws" - in this case, a budget law. No budget law means de facto NO law to protect these agencies and their employees. So we would no longer be able to go to court and win and force Musk to keep the agencies open.
This is why NOT voting for the CR means caving to Musk/Trump (because they WANT to close all agencies), in this case, whereas voting FOR the CR means legally FORCING Trump to keep all agencies open, you see?
I understood that this funding CR would endorse the whole impoundment/sequestering concept and thus counteract or undermine everything you say here. And I haven’t read the CR myself. Can you say this isn’t so?
Sequestration specifically prohibits exempt programs of social security, Medicaid & Medicare. I read it.