Talk:2018–19 United States federal government shutdown
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2018–19 United States federal government shutdown article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|The Arbitration Committee has authorized uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on users who edit pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, including this article.|
Provided the awareness criteria are met, discretionary sanctions may be used against editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process.
|The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.|
|A news item involving 2018–19 United States federal government shutdown was featured on Wikipedia's main page in the In the news section on .|
|Daily article pageviews|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, labor, traveled), and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.|
Hi mods, I changed the tense on the closure of the FCC and added the info that Ajit Pai will not go to the 2019 Consumer Electronics Show. I didn't add the citation as I'd hate to do it incorrectly but here is proof and link https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/3/18167311/ajit-pai-fcc-ces-19-consumer-electronics-government-shutdown
I also added a link to this page on the wiki article about furlough's although I didn't style quite correctly like the other links to other government shutdowns involving furloughs.
Possible affected military sectionEdit
I'll let mods decide but since 42,000 active Coast Guard members missed their 1st paycheck since the shutdown began, I think a possible section on Military affected might be noteworthy. In addition 6 groups of military veterans held a press conference noting their struggle, so it would be more than a byline or footnote.
Split article to "Effects of the 2018–19 United States federal government shutdown" and "Reactions to the 2018–19 United States federal government shutdown"Edit
Support split - Article is over 100 kB, and should be split to new pages entitled Effects of the 2018–19 United States federal government shutdown and Reactions to the 2018–19 United States federal government shutdown. Thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Jax 0677, the article is over 100 kB in "all", but it's 58 kB in readable prose size. Per WP:ARTICLESIZE, an article of this length may need to be split, but it may not. I suspect that there's plenty that can be trimmed after the WP:RECENTISM passes, so I'll oppose a split at this time. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- I oppose at this time. I don't favor atomizing content unless necessary. Editing in the normal course should be sufficient to reduce article size to the extent necessary. Neutralitytalk 23:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose. The existing content in the article should be made more concise, with as much duplication weeded out as possible. This would result in a single article of manageable size. That would be far preferable to splitting content across multiple articles, which results in difficulty co-ordinating what should be on which page, in the edge cases, and requires inevitably duplicating some boilerplate and contextual content across all the pages concerned, leading to much lower manageability and concision overall. Zazpot (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Legislation - The bills that caused the shutdownEdit
The following statements are technically incorrect
- "The shutdown stemmed from an impasse over Trump's demand for $5.7 billion in federal funds for a U.S.–Mexico border wall."
- "In December 2018, the Republican-controlled Senate unanimously passed an appropriations bill without wall funding"
- "the House passed a stopgap bill with funding for the wall"
- "The House immediately voted to approve the appropriations bill that had previously passed the Senate unanimously"
- "Trump continued to maintain that he would veto any bill that did not fund an entire border wall"
- "McConnell blocked the Senate from considering any appropriations legislation that Trump would not support, including the bill that had previously passed"
Please refer to the actual legislation at the root of the shutdown.
- HR 1625 - https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1625/actions
- HR 695 - https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/695/actions
- HR 21 - https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/21/actions
- HJ Res 1 - https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-joint-resolution/1/actions
On Mar 23, 2018, the 115th Congress passed HR 1625 which became Public Law #115-141. HR 1625 included $2.2B of funding to Customs and Border Protection for the purpose of "procurement, construction, and improvements". While these funds are used to build walls along the US/Mexico border, there is nothing in HR 1625 that requires or prohibits building walls. HR 1625 passed the House 256-167 and passed the Senate 65-32. Both Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi voted for HR 1625.
On Dec 19, 2018, the Senate passed HR 695 by voice vote. On Dec 20, 2018, the House amended HR 695 to include an additional $5.7B of funding to Customs and Border Protection for the purpose of "procurement, construction, and improvements". Just like HR 1625, nothing in HR 695 requires or prohibits building walls. HR 695 then passed the House 217-185.
Trump wanted to sign HR 695. Every Democrat in Congress opposed HR 695. McConnell would not bring HR 695 up for a vote in the Senate. HR 695 would not have passed the Senate without some Democratic support due to the 60 vote cloture rule. Lack of further action on HR 695 caused the partial government shutdown on December 22, 2018.
On Jan 3, 2019, while the shutdown continued, the new 116th House introduced HR 21 with HJ Res 1 which was similar to the version of HR 695 that passed the Senate on Dec 19th. The legislation did not strip any of the $2.2B in funding approved in HR 1625. Like HR 1625 and HR 695, HR 21 did not require or prohibit building walls. HR 21 passed the House 241-190.
Trump did not want to sign HR 21 and McConnell would not bring HR 21 up for a vote in the Senate. Lack of further action on HR 21 caused the shutdown to continue beyond January 3, 2019.
None of these bills has ever mentioned any wall. Therefore, the following statements are more accurate
- "The shutdown stemmed from an impasse over an additional $5.7 billion of funding for Customs and Border Protection"
- "In December 2018, the Republican-controlled Senate passed an appropriations bill by voice vote which neither expanded nor reduced funding for Customs and Border Protection"
- "the House passed a stopgap bill with an additional $5.7 billion of funding for Customs and Border Protection"
- "The House immediately introduced and voted to approve an appropriations bill which neither expanded nor reduced funding for Customs and Border Protection, similar to the appropriations approved by the Senate in December 2018"
- "Trump continued to maintain that he would veto any bill that did not expand funding for Customs and Border Protection which could be used to build border walls"
- "McConnell blocked the Senate from considering any appropriations legislation that Trump would not support and any legislation that could not meet the 60 vote threshold for cloture, including HR 21 and HR 695"
And most importantly, despite all the rhetoric from both sides, none of this legislation has ever required or prohibited building walls. No legislator ever had the opportunity to vote against or vote for building walls.