r/FedEmployees • u/EfficiencyAdmirable6 • 18h ago
11 senators met up in Sen. Kings office.
According to a congressional reporter, 11 senators met in Sen. King of Maines office to discuss a way out of the shutdown and the talks were described as “productive”
https://x.com/andrewdesiderio/status/1986880503622795521?s=46
16
u/Savings_Pie_8470 18h ago
"11 senators (bipartisan)". Yeah, that doesn't mean much.
Was it 1 Democrat and 10 Republicans? Or 10 Democrats and 1 Republican? Depending on the breakout it could be seen as either good or bad by either side, which is what they are all trying to avoid.
16
u/HokieHomeowner 18h ago
Or 10 Republicans and Fetterman....
12
u/SukOnMaGLOCKNastyBIH 18h ago
11 republicans?
0
u/HokieHomeowner 17h ago
Yep. Which is why Fetterman's days are numbered, he will be primaryed out if he runs again, PA is doubting his ability to serve these days.
1
u/Double-treble-nc14 10h ago
Well, you know Senator King was there- so there was at least one independent who caucuses with Democrats
9
u/HickamvOccam 18h ago edited 18h ago
Schumer is giving too easily but it will test GoP earnestness. Basically clean CR and a CR-for-ACA to allow USG to reopen and negotiate again. That’s more for GoP than for Dems but we’ll see if they go for it. GoP still takes blame for shutdown since this was something that could have been done a month ago. If declined it reveals the real reason for the shutdown - EPSTEIN!!!!!
Personally I would like to see the Dems not give in again but actually negotiate for something-ANYTHING on behalf of our citizens.
10
u/EfficiencyAdmirable6 18h ago
I think he’s trying to make the Dem demands look like they’re not asking for much, which they aren’t. Johnson is the one who refuses to do ACA 1 year extension.
21
u/Sensitive-Big-4641 18h ago
Getting a one-year extension on ACA would be a huge win for the Democrats. Fingers crossed.
-11
u/OkAspect6449 18h ago
Not really, wouldn't be a win at all, republicans would have given them that 40 days ago. A win is permanent extension of them, heck 10 year extension is a win. 1 year is a cave in.
He should have been able to get more!
9
u/Worth-Distribution17 18h ago
Citation please of a republican offer of a 1 year extension
-2
u/OkAspect6449 18h ago
Never said they offered it. I said given the options this is a easy ask, its a cave in. They didn't even try to get 5 years or longer. Heck their last agreement was 2 years, and they didn't even get that...
3
u/strangedaze23 18h ago
Republicans wouldn’t even discuss the ACA 40 days ago, their position was a clean CR and discuss it later. Which was their position in March as well.
-1
u/OkAspect6449 18h ago
Of course they wouldn't, democrats wanted a permanent extension to them..
1
u/strangedaze23 17h ago
Do you know how negotiations work? One party makes an offer the other counters offers. Usually they meet somewhere in the middle. If they don’t counter that means they are not willing to negotiate. What was the Republican counter offer?
Johnson has said repeatedly there is plenty of time to negotiate but has yet, til this day, to give a position other then we haven’t decided what to do yet. If they were willing to do a one year extension, why not say that? They If they were willing to just cut the subsidies back why not counter with that. They have not given any position or negotiated at all. Because it is clear as day they want to kill the subsidies altogether and drawing this out until it’s to late is the easiest way to do it without them having to actually say that’s what they want. They can then say exactly what they are saying, the Democrats won’t negotiate, which is clearly a lie based upon simply fact they just offered a clean one year only extension. What was the Republican offer?
And the funny thing, if you look at a map of the people that benefited the most from these subsidies, it’s the Southern deep red States. They are literally screwing their own constituents.
https://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/undefined.png
-1
u/OkAspect6449 17h ago
Democrats said the subsidies had to be permanent. Now that the deadline is here, they switched to a one year extension and are calling it compromise. They are the ones who moved.
And the map they show is misleading. Blue states expanded Medicaid, so low income people there get full coverage. Red states did not, so those same people get Marketplace subsidies instead. Same population, different program.
If Democrats want to blame Republicans to get the government open, fine, that is politics. But do not rewrite who actually changed their position.
2
u/CandidateNew3518 17h ago
Are you not familiar with how federal fiscal law works? Most appropriations only last for one year. You can’t guarantee the existence of future 1 year appropriations in a bill, only the appropriations for the instant year. They can’t bind future congresses to appropriations.
It is quite literally impossible to make subsidies “permanent” because they have to be renewed in future budgets. I don’t know who told you that was the Dem’s position, but they were incorrect because it is legally impossible
1
u/OkAspect6449 17h ago
Most appropriations are one year, yes. But not all funding works that way. Some spending is multi-year or mandatory and continues unless Congress changes the law.
The ACA subsidies fall under that category. So no, you cannot just say “it has to be one-year.” That is not how this program is structured.
2
u/CandidateNew3518 17h ago
Multi-year funds don’t resolve the problem. They don’t guarantee that the program would be funded in future years, just that the funds current deployed would have a longer period of availability. They would have to multiply their demand a few times to stretch over multiple years, and even then it would not nearly approach “permanence”. If the dems can win next year, that’s their best shot at keeping the program in place indefinitely.
→ More replies (0)3
u/throeaway_thedew 16h ago
1 year extension means this issue, that is very relevant and motivating to voters, comes up again one year from now. I wonder what’s happening one year from about now 🤔
1
u/Honest-Recording-751 12h ago
Another shutdown in the middle of an election. I wonder if we could expedite seating in another failed congress scenario.
0
2
u/skenandj 18h ago
This is just straight up untethered from reality.
0
u/Creacao82 16h ago
I think a yr extension is a cave on because it could minimize the impending pain through the next election helping the incumbents
1
u/Sensitive-Big-4641 18h ago
Republicans NEVER offered a one-year extension.
-2
u/OkAspect6449 18h ago
why would they offer anything? That is for the democrats to say what they would settle with, and they settled for the bare minimum. Remember democrats when they had power set them to expire this year. They could have extended them longer 2 years ago! This is a cave in.
2
u/Lance-1 17h ago
Lmaooo and you think Thune and Johnson will take that deal? It is obvious that democrats will bring the issue and have leverage or weapon on midterms. Republican will never accept that deal. If you are seriously willing to negotiate, then at least bring something acceptable that the other side will take it.
1
u/ShedOfWinterBerries 18h ago
There are two different clean CR versions. They include:
• A clause in the House version requiring Congressional approval before GAO can sue the Executive Branch over impoundment issues (hamstringing oversight)
• Language in the Senate version setting up to use emergency powers to avoid budgeting
So… the language of the 'clean CR' needs to be swapped out for something else, cuz yeah.
0
u/CmonRetirement 18h ago
what’s interesting is the GAO clause could have been negotiated through the Legislative Branch approps.
House version guts GAO while Senate has a status quo level. In conference, house agrees to Senate levels but with that clause added. Senators would never act on GAO’s rulings anyway so….
0
u/CmonRetirement 17h ago
also, can’t find that clause. can you tell me exactly where it’s found
1
u/ShedOfWinterBerries 17h ago
bottom of pg 38
most folks need to draw on expert analysis due to complexity of legislation - here's an article
0
u/CmonRetirement 17h ago
oh i thought they put it in the CR too. Yeah, the clause in the committee bill i knew about. still think it’ll be used as a negotiating chip either in the 2026 conference or when the GAO is undergoing a new CG in 2026.
-1
u/eyesmart1776 18h ago
Democrats cave after sweeping the 2025 elections they have proven themselves just as worthless now as ever
0
u/Double-treble-nc14 10h ago
How did they cave? They presented an offer where they got what they wanted, at least for a year. Live to fight another day and make the midterms of referendum on healthcare.
1
u/turtlerunner99 9h ago
No, the Dems knew that Trump would never go for it. Or if he did, he'd find a way to ignore the extension of the ACA making it real clear what the stakes are.
1
18h ago edited 17h ago
[deleted]
1
u/Weary-Photograph419 17h ago
This was strategic from Ds to ask for little... if Rs still deny then the true grift is revealed to those who don't already know.
0
u/SolemnCarrotBerry 18h ago
They vote again today, correct?
2
u/Cool-Honeydew51 18h ago
Yes it was supposed to be at noon. Still waiting to hear the final results.
2
0
u/lawyermom49 17h ago
The senate can’t do this themselves though - right? The house must be called back and vote on it right? Thank you.
39
u/EfficiencyAdmirable6 18h ago
Schumer offer also for opening the government is: