124

Senate strikes compromise that offers end to shutdown if House concurs (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

31 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The amended package will still have to be passed by the House and sent to Trump for his signature, a process that could take days

The compromise legislation authorizes government funding through 30 January 2026 and undoes the firings of federal workers that the White House carried out after the shutdown began. It also guarantees retroactive pay for furloughed federal workers and those who stayed on the job during the shutdown, and prevents further layoffs through January. Included in the compromise are three appropriations bill that will authorize spending through the 2026 fiscal year for the departments of agriculture and veterans affairs, among others.

The compromise does not resolved the issue of the Affordable Care Act premiums, which one study forecast would jump by an average of 26% if the tax credits were allowed to expire.

As part of the deal, Thune said he would allow a vote on a bill to deal with the credits by the second week of December. But even if it succeeds, Republican House speaker Mike Johnson has said he will not put such a measure on the floor.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 11 months ago

“Capitulating” usually infers a loss of sorts. The democrats folding indicates that they are the opposite of “in control” of anything.

The entire PR battle was about who was responsible for the shutdown, when either side could have had defectors and ended it in the other side's favor. But the outcome contextualizes the battle retroactively. Here, the outcome was that democrats "won" at best status quo from before the shutdown, which is just objectively a loss since we had 40 days of pain until then. Further, the public impression will likely be that the shutdown was pointless if nothing of value was actually gained, all while democrats shine a spotlight on their part in this. Democrats defected, so that is a "capitulation" which is a loss plus volition. Really confused what is controversial about those statements, let me know.

But also, “technical” leverage? That sounds like some bs. Like “potential” leverage.

"Technical" in the sense that yes, you can say they have leverage, while in substance, no, they do not have leverage. "Superficial" leverage work better? "Illusory" leverage?

There is absolutely no reason to think a December vote will be any different, while they also gave up the actual leverage (the republican-damaging PR effect of this shutdown) and will start in December in a materially worse negotiating position because of that. I think the meaning is clear, but let me know if not.

this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2025

124 points (97.0% liked)

politics

31558 readers

2142 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News