McConnell's shutdown and Trump's pocket veto

How is it possible that the refusal of the President to sign a bill — one that passed both the House and Senate — can (partially) shut down the government? 

Our government has a system of checks and balances. The Constitution gives the President 10 days to review a bill passed by the legislature. If he signs it, it becomes law; if he vetos it, Congress can vote to override that veto. If the President does nothing during that time, the bill becomes law without his signature. 

But there is a loophole. If Congress adjourns during those 10 days, then, if the President takes no action, the bill simply lapses. It does not become law, and since there was no veto to override, Congress cannot override this “pocket veto”. Hence the current shutdown. 

Events: 

Dec 6 -  Congress voted to delay action until after GHW Bush’s funeral. 

Dec 19 - Congress passed a bill that would keep the government open. Trump supposedly supported it. 

Dec 20 - Trump flip-flopped, after watching Fox and Friends, and announced he would not sign the bill after all.

Dec 22 - McConnell adjourned the Senate, making Trump’s refusal to sign into a pocket veto. 

By adjourning the Senate, McConnell converted Trump's refusal to sign into a pocket veto. This wiped out the previous negotiations and forced a return to square one. 

Although the House has new leadership, McConnell is still the Senate Majority leader, and he refuses to let any bills come to the floor for a vote unless it already has the support of the President. He is, in short, acting as the President’s agent rather than as the leader of a separate branch of government.

Trump was happy to claim responsibility for the shutdown, but I think history will point the finger at McConnell as the one responsible. He turned Trump's inaction into a pocket veto, and is now single-handedly ensuring that the shutdown endures. 

It is absurd that one person should have that power. A system of checks and balances demands that such stonewalling by one person can be overridden. (Note that control of the Senate (or House) by the majority party is not in the Constitution; in fact political parties are not granted any power.)  I suggest that it is completely consistent for members of Congress to be able to bring a bill to the floor, despite obstruction by the majority leader, by using a referendum or petition by ⅔ of the members of that Chamber.

So that’s how we got here. How can we mitigate the effects of a shutdown? For that matter, what exactly is a shutdown? 

A shutdown means that Congress hasn’t allocated the money for certain things, and so the government cannot spend money on them. The result is a partial shut down. Technically, that is ALL it means; there is no money. 

But some people interpret the idea of a shutdown in ways that make the problem worse. 

Having no money to pay for something is different from preventing action. But the government is forbidding anything that might be interpreted as work, even when people are willing to risk not being paid. For instance, NASA scientists were forbidden to attend the American Astronomical Society meeting, even if they were willing to foot the bill themselves. And some park rangers have said that they would have been willing to maintain a presence in Joshua Tree National Park that might have prevented the horrible vandalism there. But they were not permitted.  

It seems to me that if someone is willing to run the risk that they may not get paid or reimbursed, they should be allowed to continue their work. This especially applies to fields that are time-dependent and/or fueled by passion, such as scientific research or places where inaction causes real hardship. Such employees should not be actively prevented from doing their work, especially since such obstruction may waste more money than letting the work go forward. 

The government should also protect the employees who, though no fault of their own, are not being paid. Those called for jury duty, those who serve in the National Guard, or are volunteer firefighters or EMTs, all have legal protections against being penalized by their employers. A similar law could require forbearance by creditors towards those affected by a government shutdown. This involves little risk to the creditors, especially as wages are usually only delayed, not lost. 

Alternatively, a sort of unemployment (actually, furlough) insurance could be provided via a private insurance company, so that the administration of benefits does not depend on federal employees. This has the additional benefit of maintaining money flow, which will help maintain those who are not government employees but who depend on that community for their livelihood. 

Finally, federal employees often have clauses in their contract that prevent them from taking a second job. These clauses should be declared to be not in effect when there is a government shutdown. Confidentiality and security restrictions would still apply, but it is absurd to insist that someone not work at all, even in an unrelated field, when they are willing and able to do so.  

I believe that resistance to some of these common-sense measures stems from the idea that a government shutdown HAS to be painful, so that there is pressure for the negotiators to come to an agreement. I reject that as simple hostage-taking. 

Here is something to remember: NO ONE serving our government is the ENEMY of anyone else. Rivals, yes. Competitors, yes. But not enemies. Both sides -- all sides --  want the best for our country. They just have different visions of what "best" means. This is not grounds for demonization. We are not citizens of the Republican or Democratic Party; we are citizens of the United States of America. 

I recently heard a (Republican) Congressman say that the voters elected a mixed government, which means that the people WANT the parties to work together and compromise. Yes. 

Government is a collaborative enterprise, not a zero-sum game.