Yes, it's possible. Any system built by people can be destroyed by people.
Now, of course, there would be a reaction. What specifically that would be I can't say. I'd like to think it would cause serious blowback, but I'm also pretty jaded and don't really have that much faith in people all the time.
I'm not claiming the Democrats had full control of anything. And no, a shut down would not have been much faster. It would have been more chaotic, but not faster. And maybe the chaos would have helped get more people into the streets resisting. I don't know.
But I do know that capitulating to fascists is never a good strategy. There has never once been a situation where capitulating to fascists has resulted in a better outcome. Schumer got played. You got played.
Right, it was lose/lose. Either way bad things are going to happen. So why sign on to participate and take ownership of it? What does anyone gain by that.
The situation would not be worse under a shutdown. It would just be a different type of bad. Trump and Musk are still firing anyone they want without regard to the law or courts. They're still gutting funding wherever they want.
The ONLY difference between passing this CR and not is that the Vichy Democrats put their stamp of approval on what's happening now.
I need you to explain why you think it’s a better choice to give Trump the ability to indiscriminately terminate non-essential government employees than to have control of the budget.
Who do you think has control of the budget? Do you really think that by rolling over and giving Trump everything he wants now Schumer will somehow have control of anything in September?
And why do you think passing the CR will stop Trump and Musk from terminating anyone they want? They're still doing that.
ALL spending bills are "temporary" in that they don't provide unlimited funds for forever. The CR doesn't say, "give as much money as is needed until September." It says "we allocated $XXXX". And since we know how to predict how much money the government spends, we know that amount of money will run out in September.
This is the same way it works if they passed an appropriations bill. The only difference is that they based spending levels on the previous spending bills rather than on a budget bill.
You have no clue what you're talking about, which is demonstrated by your repeated use of the term "budget reconciliation bill" as if it applies to anything here. The budget reconciliation process can only happen after an appropriation bill is passed, which this CR was.
So you are admitting that passing the CR did nothing to protect these jobs you seem so concerned for? Then why are you arguing so fervently in favor of Vichy collaborationists?
Why are you pretending like they're not doing that anyways? There are people right now lined up outside NIH and HHS buildings because DOGE has shut them out and is firing them. The last of the USAID workers lost their jobs yesterday. Yet you're here pretending like allowing the CR to pass prevented people from losing their jobs? Brother, you've been duped into being a collaborationist!
Yes. Let them take the shutdown and own it. You seem to be operating from the premise that a shutdown would have been popular and had no negative political blowback on the fascists. History does not support this assumption.
Make Trump and Musk go tell people that they don't deserve the services they'd lose from a shutdown. Instead, Schumer said that Democrats agree with all the cuts that were already in the CR.
If you can't extract concessions, then you let them take the loss alone. Instead, Vichy Schumer just agreed to sign the Democrats on as collaborators.
You don’t understand what a CR is if you think it’s permanent. A continuing resolution is stopgap funding when a budget reconciliation fails to be passed.
You don't understand how Congress works. A CR isn't used when Budget Reconciliation isn't passed. It's used when spending bills don't pass.
The "normal' (or what's supposed to be normal) process for funding the government is that the Congress passes a Budget, which is a set of funding guidelines, but doesn't actually allocate money. That budget is then used by various committees to write appropriations bills, which is what actually allows the government to spend money. Those spending bills are typically supposed to only cover 1 year, with new appropriations given every year.
Except Congress has been a dysfunctional mess for decades. They rarely actually pass Budget or appropriations bills. That's why we're always under these shutdown threats, because Congress doesn't work as it's supposed to. So when they come down to crunch time and can't pass spending bills, they pass a Continuing Resolution (CR). A CR is an appropriations bill, but instead of using a recent budget as a guideline, the CR just says "continue funding the government at the exact levels it was with these minor adjustments" (usually cutting funding by 2-5% and/or increasing in specific areas, like disaster relief if there was just a hurricane or something).
A CR, just like a normal appropriations bill, funds only to a set level. They don't have a time limit in that they say "funding will stop on X date", but they know how fast the government spends money, so they can predict that $XXX will last YYY days. In that way, they can say "fund $XXX worth" knowing that will expire on a certain date. CRs are just as "permanent" as any appropriations bill
A Budget Reconciliation is a completely different thing. It's a process that allows the Senate to adjust existing spending bills while bypassing the 60 vote threshold for cloture required by the filibuster rules. When the Congress writes a spending bill, they include language within it to say, "this portion of the budget can later be adjusted through reconciliation". The intention is to strip out particularly contentious parts of the larger bill to allow the larger bill to pass while letting Congress then address the stickier issue on its own. So, for example, you don't have to hold up funding national parks just because you can't decide how much to spend on a new military drone program, for example.
However, since Reconciliation allows the majority party to bypass the filibuster, it's use is primarily to pass legislation that the majority knows they can't do through normal legislation (due to the 60 vote threshold the filibuster puts on everything). There are certain rules which I can get into if you want that limit what types of things can be done through reconciliation and how often. But your framing in your comment above about how CRs are supposedly temporary until a Reconciliation Bill is passed is just flat out wrong.
It's democratic confederalism