
Column: Schumer, Johnson deserve praise for averting government shutdown
The leader of the minority Democrats in the United States Senate, Charles Schumer, D-New York, has quietly but effectively aided the Republicans on an important spending vote, and thereby increased his own standing and perhaps the prospects of his beleaguered party.
Ten Senate Democrats led by Schumer joined with Republicans to pass a stopgap spending bill on March 14 that averts a shutdown and guarantees that the U.S. government will continue to operate through the end of September.
The threat of the government shutting down is an ongoing problem dating from the administration of President Jimmy Carter. Before 1980, the expiration of appropriations legislation did not disrupt government functions. Politicians worked things out, flexibly, pragmatically and behind the scenes.
Then, during the Carter years, curious U.S. Rep. Gladys Noon Spellman, D-Maryland, inquired about the 1884 Antideficiency Act, which prohibits spending public funds without congressional authorization. Able Elmer Staats, comptroller general, head of Congress' audit arm, responded with the opinion that Congress did not intend work to cease when an appropriation ended.
However, Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti disagreed. He declared agencies must close when funding ends.
Crises have regularly followed.
The congresswoman's request for opinions arose in connection with funding for the Federal Trade Commission. That agency shut down briefly in May of 1980. While the doors soon reopened and employees returned to work, the resulting disruption continued long after that.
There were three shutdowns of the federal government during the administration of Ronald Reagan, and one under George H.W. Bush.
In 1994, Republicans took control of the U.S. House of Representatives after 40 years in minority status. Their majority was led by new Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, R-Georgia, who dramatically accelerated the trend of shifting that office from a relatively nonpartisan to highly partisan pulpit.
White House Democrats and congressional Republicans played an escalating game of budgetary chicken. The federal government was shut down briefly. In the political and public media maneuvering, President Bill Clinton was able to put the onus squarely on the Gingrich Republicans.
Publicly cool and politically cunning, Clinton moved ahead in the public opinion polls. He was helped by emphasizing fiscal restraint. In the 1996 presidential election, he defeated Republican nominee Sen. Bob Dole, R-Kansas.
In 2013, Republicans managed to shut down the government for 16 days as part of the effort to derail the Affordable Care Act. Then as before, Democrats, led by President Barack Obama, used the Republican effort for partisan political advantage.
Along with Sen. Schumer, Speaker of the House of Representatives Mike Johnson, R-Lousiana, deserves credit for maintaining relative stability, conducting business in an orderly manner and avoiding intense partisan vitriol.
Johnson has only been in the speakership since October 2023, but so far has generally managed to avoid the turmoil that characterized the relatively brief tenures of predecessors Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, and John Boehner, R-Ohio.
Resolution of intense congressional conflicts over spending that have led to shutdowns is aided, indirectly but powerfully, by the evidence of public unhappiness with the practice of not handling appropriations in an orderly, adult manner.
Democrat Sam Rayburn of Texas remains distinctive as a remarkably durable speaker of the House. From the 1940s into the 1960s, he successfully led the House, despite the difficult politics of that era.
Rayburn holds the record for longest service as speaker, reflecting his exceptionally effective pragmatic political skills.
Speaker Johnson and Sen. Schumer demonstrate similar skills, something that is now more important than ever.
Arthur I. Cyr is the author of 'After the Cold War – American Foreign Policy, Europe and Asia' (Palgrave/Macmillan and NYU Press).
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Newsweek
10 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Marjorie Taylor Greene Fumes Over Vaccine Approval: 'Not MAHA at All'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Marjorie Taylor Greene has spoken out against a new COVID-19 vaccine being approved in the United States, saying the move is "not MAHA at all." Why It Matters Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is facing repeated backlash for some of his positions on health and medicine, including from people who would ordinarily support him. In May, prominent members of the Make America Great Again movement, including Nicole Shanahan, Kennedy's former presidential running mate, and media personality Laura Loomer, spoke out against Kennedy Jr.'s pick for U.S. Surgeon General Casey Means. In March, Kennedy Jr. sparked anger from anti-vax activists when he called on parents to "consult with their healthcare providers to understand their options to get the MMR vaccine," with one saying he is "no different than Fauci." Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., arrives for a meeting of House Republicans in the Capitol Visitor Center on May 15, 2025. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., arrives for a meeting of House Republicans in the Capitol Visitor Center on May 15, 2025. AP What To Know The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) gave the green light for mNEXSPIKE (mRNA-1283), Moderna's new lower-dose COVID-19 vaccine, on May 31. Greene, the U.S. representative for Georgia's 14th congressional district, shared Moderna's post about the recent approval with the caption: "Not MAHA at all!!! Unreal." Not MAHA at all!!! Unreal. — Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸 (@RepMTG) June 1, 2025 She was referring to Kennedy Jr.'s movement Make America Healthy Again, whose mission is to "aggressively combat the critical health challenges facing our citizens, including the rising rates of mental health disorders, obesity, diabetes, and other chronic diseases." Newsweek has contacted the United States Department of Health and Human Services outside of office hours, via email, for comment. The new vaccine is set to be used for adults 65 or older or people between the ages of 12 and 64 with at least one or more underlying risk factor as defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Approval for the jab is "based on results from a randomized, observer-blind, active-controlled Phase 3 clinical trial which enrolled approximately 11,400 participants aged 12 years and older," Moderna says. It comes after Kennedy Jr. announced that the CDC is no longer encouraging COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant women and healthy children, marking a shift in federal public health guidance. What People Are Saying Chief Executive Officer of Moderna Stéphane Bancel said in a statement: "The FDA approval of our third product, mNEXSPIKE, adds an important new tool to help protect people at high risk of severe disease from COVID-19. "COVID-19 remains a serious public health threat, with more than 47,000 Americans dying from the virus last year alone. We appreciate the FDA's timely review and thank the entire Moderna team for their hard work and continued commitment to public health." Kennedy Jr. said about the new CDC guidance: "I couldn't be more pleased to announce that as of today the COVID vaccine for healthy children and healthy pregnant women has been removed from the CDC recommended immunization schedule." What Happens Next The new vaccine is expected to be ready for those eligible to take it in time for the 2025-2026 respiratory virus season. You should not get mNEXSPIKE if you had a severe allergic reaction after a previous dose of either mNEXSPIKE, SPIKEVAX (an mRNA vaccine for preventing COVID-19) or any Moderna COVID-19 vaccine or to any ingredient in these vaccines, the company warns.


Boston Globe
20 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Today in History: June 2, Queen Elizabeth II crowned
In 1886, 49-year-old President Grover Cleveland became the first president to get married in the White House, wedding 21-year-old Frances Folsom. Advertisement In 1924, Congress passed, and President Calvin Coolidge signed, the Indian Citizenship Act, a measure guaranteeing full American citizenship for all Native Americans born within US territorial limits. In 1941, baseball's 'Iron Horse,' Lou Gehrig, died in New York of the degenerative disease amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, also known as ALS or Lou Gehrig's disease; he was 37. Advertisement In 1953, Queen Elizabeth II was crowned at age 27 at a ceremony in London's Westminster Abbey, 16 months after the death of her father, King George VI. In 1966, US space probe Surveyor 1 landed on the moon and began transmitting detailed photographs of the lunar surface. In 1997, Timothy McVeigh was convicted of murder by a federal jury in the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, which killed 168 people. (McVeigh would be sentenced to death and was executed in 2001.) In 1999, South Africans went to the polls in their second post-apartheid election, giving the African National Congress a decisive victory; retiring President Nelson Mandela was succeeded by Thabo Mbeki. In 2012, ousted Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was sentenced to life in prison after a court convicted him on charges of complicity in the killing of protesters during the 2011 uprising that forced him from power. (Mubarak was later acquitted and freed in March 2017; he died in February 2020). In 2016, autopsy results revealed that musician Prince died of an accidental overdose of fentanyl, a powerful opioid painkiller.


Fox News
36 minutes ago
- Fox News
Airline passenger sparks heated debate about 'rarely enforced' baggage policy on flight
A flight passenger who boarded a late-night flight out of Atlanta, Georgia, shared frustrations about the baggage-related actions of some fellow flyers. Posting in the "r/delta" Reddit forum with the title, "Another rant about carry-ons and personal items," the user wrote to others, "Seriously, why have a 'rule' about one carry-on and one personal item when it's rarely enforced." The user added, "I watch[ed] a person with two, what I would call, large roll bags and no personal items put both rollers in an overhead bin while an FA [flight attendant] watched him do it." The user then added, "[Since] I paid to check my bag, I figured I'd put my backpack above my seat and the same FA [then] tells me that I can't do that." The person continued, "I mention to the FA that we just watched a person put two rollers in the overhead and why is that OK. The FA ignores me, moves on." The user said the flight attendant then put the bag under the seat in front. Reddit users took to the comments section to speculate about the actions of the traveler with two suitcases, plus bag policy habits. "Just from a personal experience, I once was asked about my two roller bags and my backpack as I was going to my seat," said one user. "I handle my mom's luggage when she gets on a plane because she can't. [So] it is very possible [this person was] doing the same." Another user pointed out other issues: "Let's talk about the real problem: baggage fees. This is why everyone uses a carry-on now. Which in turn makes boarding and deplaning take waaaay longer." Said yet another person, "Airlines need to start allowing a more generous checked baggage policy and start charging for carry-on luggage. That would solve several problems." One Redditor added, "I stopped traveling with a backpack because I got tired of having to sacrifice my legroom due to FAs screeching about backpacks going under the seat (even though it was usually my only carry-on)." One snarky user told the original poster, "Maybe you shouldn't be trying to police others, and [instead] should put your personal item under the seat in front of you where it [belongs]." "I'm [a member of a] flight crew who frequently travels as a passenger on commercial airliners," claimed one user. The person continued, "Rule of thumb is that if I'm not in uniform, I'm not allowed to bring more than the standard bag allowance for any passenger, whether crew or not." "If the flight is not full, oftentimes this rule is overlooked." Said another person on Reddit, "If I only have one item, that's my carry-on regardless of size, and I'm definitely putting it in the overhead and not under the seat in front of me." Former flight attendant and etiquette expert Jacqueline Whitmore of Florida told Fox News Digital the flight attendant may have been in the wrong in the case in question. "I'm not sure why this passenger was not allowed to put her backpack in the overhead bin. That's perfectly acceptable unless the bins are full," said Whitmore. She added, "The airlines have a policy that passengers can take one bag (of a certain size) and a personal item onboard the plane. If the flight is not full, oftentimes this rule is overlooked."