• tal@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    15 days ago

    I think that there’s a good argument that we need a review of programs and to explicitly indicate their status in law regarding funding when there’s no budget ahead of time. Having all this worked out by courts at the last minute under extreme time pressure is a mess. Makes it much harder to plan.

    Yes, ideally we’d never have shutdowns, but they do happen, and in the past few years we’ve had an unusually high number. Better to be prepared.

    • Barbarian@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      15 days ago

      In most EU countries, if there really is a blowup over the budget (much rarer than the US), the old budget remains in place until a new one is negotiated.

    • mushroommunk@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      15 days ago

      SNAP actually did that. There’s an several billion dollar emergency buffer fund that was established for exactly this situation. Trump and his cronies decided to not use it though.

      The judge is trying to make sure the plan that was established is followed instead of Trump getting to just choose who benefits from his whims

      • BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        15 days ago

        He’ll say all the money is gone, because he had to bail out a Russian yacht manufacturer, but it created a lot of jobs, and was very profitable. For Russians.

      • Lemming6969@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        14 days ago

        So they didn’t do it. The buffer is just more money in the same bucket they just hope they don’t have to use, but they have direct control over neither. Emergency powers should probably transfer to an impartial body of possible recipient analysts so funds cannot be used as political fodder.