News Will the House Funding Bill Ignite a Government Shutdown?

[Office_Shredder]

This is a gross simplification. Everybody who buys stuff at retail is subject to sales taxes (local and state), and everybody with other tax obligations (excise taxes, property taxes, etc) all have to pay a share, which can go to the Federal government or at least offset their states' obligation to the Fed. Taxes are built into every transaction, and we all have to pay them.

I realize it's a simplification, but the implication that people who are at the lower end of the economic scale are being screwed by our large national debt is way more of a simplification. Plus local and state taxes are not involved with paying off (or reducing the rate of growth) of the federal debt so are irrelevant to the point - if anything, money flows from the federal government to the state, so as far as the federal government is concerned, it's borrowing money and taxing people so that people who don't pay income taxes also get to pay less in state and local taxes than they otherwise would.

This is not a statement about the effectiveness or efficiency of the tax system (a conversation about which is not appropriate for this thread) but merely me remarking that claiming that every American is saddled with an equal share of the federal debt is certainly the wrong way to look at things.

 

[mheslep]

They're most definitely not paid on schedule, and some people

http://www.sfgate.com/business/netw...und-retro-pay-for-federal-workers-4857606.php

think they might not get paid at all.

To be clear I was thinking in immediate terms. The next couple pay checks, today and Thursday, go out on schedule. After that no, though in all prior shutdowns those furloughed received pay retroactively.

Also I would note that if you are unemployed, you probably aren't paying federal taxes and so your share of the federal debt is approximately zero (not to say that being unemployed is a good thing, but your argument is ridiculous).

Debt obligation is based on taxes paid? How is that? If I was employed and paying federal income taxes yesterday but today I'm unemployed, has the US debt suddenly become a non-issue for me? Hardly. As the collapse in Greece and the like have shown, mounting debt eventually leads to unsustainable interest payments which block further borrowing, and devour all other government spending including transfer payments to those in need (like the unemployed).

 

[OmCheeto]

Sorry... But I really love seeing what the 7 billion other humans on this planet think about this:

http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/201310011923-0023078

:thumbs:

 

[DrClaude]

NIST has even shut down their website! See for instance: http://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/Handbook/

I get information there at least one a week. This really sucks!

 

[lisab]

NIST has even shut down their website! See for instance: http://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/Handbook/

I get information there at least one a week. This really sucks!

Me too -- I tried to get wood strength properties from the Wood Handbook (a fine publication from the Forest Products Lab), and it was not available.

No wood strength properties...wth?! This is personal now !

 

[AlephZero]

I don't understand why Speaker Boehner is so afraid to call a vote which could pass a "clean" bill.

If UK journalism (BBC, quality national newspapers) is to be believed, the Tea Party has got control of the Republican party appointments procedures.

So if "Speaker Boehmer" doesn't do what he's told, he would quickly become "the person formerly known as Speaker Boehmer".

And come the next round of elections, he wouldn't even a candidate - and neither would any other republicans who "voted for Obamacare".

 

[Vanadium 50]

t I've remembered that the number of congressmen per state is different so it's possible to win >50% of the states (and therefore likely win the presidency) but those states can count for <50% of congress. Is that right?

The US Congress has two chambers. The House of Representatives, which is apportioned by population (435 members) and whose members enjoy 2-year terms, and the Senate, where every state gets two seats (100 members) and whose members enjoy staggered 6-year terms. For a bill to become law, both houses must approve it, and the President must sign it. (I won't go into overriding vetoes here)

The way the budget process works is as follows. Constitutionally, all bills pertaining to the raising of revenue must originate in the House, and as a practical matter this means that all budget bills must start there, since these bills contain both revenues and expenditures.

A regular budget contains up to 13 spending bills - one for Defense, one for Energy and Water, etc. The reason for this is that debate on, say, whether the Navy can afford a new submarine should be independent from debate on whether the IRS needs a bigger computer. The last budget of this kind was in 2012. There is also a continuing resolution, which is a temporary spending bill to allow the government to function while a more permanent bill can be agreed upon. Often there is no agreement, and the entire fiscal year is spennt under a CR. In reecnt years, this has been the rule and not the exception. Note that one can (and does) get into a situation where part of the government is funded by a spending bill and part by a CR.

• First, the President submits his budget to Congress. This is purely advisory.
• Second, the House passes a budget. (Remember, budget bills start in the House)
• Next, the Senate passes a budget. This usually differs from the House version.
• The two bills go into what is called a "conference committee" - members from both parties and both houses and craft a compromise bill that they believe will pass both houses. Usually this bill is sort of an average of the two, but not always: sometimes a given item ends up with less than is in either bill.
• This bill is voted on, first by the House (budget bills start in the House) and then by the Senate. No amendments are allowed at this stage. If passed by both houses, it goes to the President for his signature. If not, it goes back to the conference committee. This is rare.
• The President signs or vetoes the bill. If signed, it becomes the budget. If vetoed, the whole process starts over in the House. It is not unusual for a veto of a budget for one agency. It is rare (I can think of no examples) when an entire budget is vetoed.

Where are we in this cycle? The President has made his request. The House has passed two budget bills. The Senate has not passed its own bill and in addition has voted against participating in a conference committee. With no compromise bill, there won't be anything to vote on, and so things have frozen to a halt.

 

[Vanadium 50]

If UK journalism (BBC, quality national newspapers) is to be believed, the Tea Party has got control of the Republican party appointments procedures.

So if "Speaker Boehmer" doesn't do what he's told, he would quickly become "the person formerly known as Speaker Boehmer".

And come the next round of elections, he wouldn't even a candidate - and neither would any other republicans who "voted for Obamacare".

I don't believe that is the case. Speaker Boehner (not Boehmer) has had primary challengers from further Right before. In 2012, he beat David Lewis by more than a factor of 5. In 2010, when Tea Party support was at its zenith, he beat his rightward challenger by more like 20:1.

What I think you are missing is how deeply unpopular Obamacare is in certain sectors. Looking at the weekend polls: 59% of Americans oppose it, 54% expect it to increase and not decrease health care costs, and 51% are supportive of a government shutdown to stop it, and only 17% believe it will help them personally. Unsurprisingly, these numbers are correlated with political party, so if you are a Republican legislator, your constituents are even less happy with it than the national average.

Unions, corporations and even Congress have sought exemptions from Obamacare. A thousand exemptions (including to Congress) have been granted, and there have been accusations that granting or not granting exemptions is influenced by political considerations.

It was passed by Congress without a single Republican vote - itself highly unusual. It passed the Senate by a single vote, just before a newly elected Senator who opposed the bill could be seated. Also, the bill had elements in it borne of political necessity that many felt unsavory: the so-called Cornhusker Kickback, where Nebraska would get a higher rate of Medicaid reimbursement in exchange for the vote of Senator Ben Nelson, of Nebraska. This is all perfectly legal, but you can probably see why people who opposed the bill are unhappy with its provenance.

 

[Office_Shredder]

What I think you are missing is how deeply unpopular Obamacare is in certain sectors. Looking at the weekend polls: 59% of Americans oppose it, 54% expect it to increase and not decrease health care costs, and 51% are supportive of a government shutdown to stop it, and only 17% believe it will help them personally. Unsurprisingly, these numbers are correlated with political party, so if you are a Republican legislator, your constituents are even less happy with it than the national average.

Where are you getting these numbers from? Here's an example of a Forbes poll:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/30/us-usa-fiscal-poll-idUSBRE98T0J720130930

60% said it is more important to avoid a shutdown than to make major changes to the law. And then yesterday we got this poll:

According to the latest Quinnipiac Polling released Tuesday, by a 72-22 percent margin, voters opposed Congress shutting down the federal government to block implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

This is remarkable far from the 51% supporting a shutdown that you claimed, and also has a nearly even split between finding the law favorable/unfavorabl, which is much closer than most polls report, but see the next sentence. The approximately 55-60% opposed number that gets thrown around a lot seems to come from polls in which people who thought Obamacare didn't go far enough (about 10%) were included in the "opposed", and they are obviously not supporters of the Republicans in this. For example:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html

The CNN poll:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2013/images/09/30/rel10a.pdf

Favor is 38%. Opposed, too liberal is 39%. Opposed, not liberal enough, is 11%. So when you say you saw a poll that reported 59% opposed, that makes me think the poll is really reporting less than half of people support the Republicans here (and that's assuming everyone who opposes the Republicans is in favor of a shutdown!).

 

[Astronuc]

143-year-old law stirs fears during shutdown
By Steve Liesman | CNBC – Tue, Oct 1, 2013 3:34 PM EDT..

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/143-old-law-stirs-fears-193436176.html

Administration officials now live in fear of a 19th-century law that could get them fired, penalized or even imprisoned if they make the wrong choices while the government is shut down.

The law is the Antideficiency Act, passed by Congress in 1870 (and amended several times), which prohibits the government from incurring any monetary obligation for which the Congress has not appropriated funds.

. . . .

. . . Under the act, even volunteering for government service is expressly prohibited.

I heard a statement recently that a greater percentage of persons polled supported "Affordable Care Act" than "Obamacare," although the terms refer to the same law. In other words, the percentage in favor or disfavor depended on which term was used.

 

[lisab]

What I think you are missing is how deeply unpopular Obamacare is in certain sectors. Looking at the weekend polls: 59% of Americans oppose it, 54% expect it to increase and not decrease health care costs, and 51% are supportive of a government shutdown to stop it, and only 17% believe it will help them personally. Unsurprisingly, these numbers are correlated with political party, so if you are a Republican legislator, your constituents are even less happy with it than the national average.

But "certain sectors" shouldn't have a little tantrum when they don't get their way.

I'm not convinced people even know much about the law. There is quite a lot of misinformation out there. For example, people here support the Affordable Care Act but are not in favor of Obamacare:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx2scvIFGjE


And for those of you following along at home, the Affordable Care Act IS Obamacare. Same thing.

Unions, corporations and even Congress have sought exemptions from Obamacare. A thousand exemptions (including to Congress) have been granted, and there have been accusations that granting or not granting exemptions is influenced by political considerations.

It was passed by Congress without a single Republican vote - itself highly unusual. It passed the Senate by a single vote, just before a newly elected Senator who opposed the bill could be seated. Also, the bill had elements in it borne of political necessity that many felt unsavory: the so-called Cornhusker Kickback, where Nebraska would get a higher rate of Medicaid reimbursement in exchange for the vote of Senator Ben Nelson, of Nebraska. This is all perfectly legal, but you can probably see why people who opposed the bill are unhappy with its provenance.

Yes it passed with no Republican votes. That's how democracy works. If the Republicans had fielded a stronger presidential candidate, things may have been different.

This shut down is so damaging to the Republicans, it's beyond comprehension, IMO. Well not just my opinion -- Office_Shredder's statistics attest to that.

 

[Vanadium 50]

But "certain sectors" shouldn't have a little tantrum when they don't get their way.

And that tone is exactly why there is so much resentment towards Democrats and the left by those people. Langauge that infantilizes people whose opinions differ from yours is not helpful in winning them to your side.

We can also play what-ifs all day. Yes, if Mitt Romney were elected, things would be different. If the PPACA were written in such a way that it could have gotten any Republican support - or even the support of the 34 centrist Democrats who opposed it - things would be different now. But those are not the worlds we live in.

The "tantrum", as you call it, was put in the Constitution for pretty much this situation - like all checks and balances, it protects the minority against the excesses of the majority.

For the record, I am opposed to the shutdown, and I think Obamacare is a good idea, poorly implemented and even more poorly enacted. I think the resistance was entirely predictable, and entirely unnecessary. In the words of Spock, "I said I understand. I did not say I approved."

 

[lisab]

And that tone is exactly why there is so much resentment towards Democrats and the left by those people. Langauge that infantilizes people whose opinions differ from yours is not helpful in winning them to your side.

We can also play what-ifs all day. Yes, if Mitt Romney were elected, things would be different. If the PPACA were written in such a way that it could have gotten any Republican support - or even the support of the 34 centrist Democrats who opposed it - things would be different now. But those are not the worlds we live in.

The "tantrum", as you call it, was put in the Constitution for pretty much this situation - like all checks and balances, it protects the minority against the excesses of the majority.

For the record, I am opposed to the shutdown, and I think Obamacare is a good idea, poorly implemented and even more poorly enacted. I think the resistance was entirely predictable, and entirely unnecessary. In the words of Spock, "I said I understand. I did not say I approved."

I guess "infantilize" is as good a term as any for people who are acting as spoiled children, IMO. The time to have an insurrection was when the law was being voted on - it's already law now! I'm embarrassed for my government, and I don't see how the Republicans are going to make it out of this in good shape.

I actually think Boehner is OK, I don't like that he cries so much but if you look at his record objectively you see he is good at finding compromises. And that's what our system was built on: compromise makes for good governance. He was a good choice to govern a highly polarized congress. But he has not handled an insurrection in his own party well at all. He has very few good choices at this point, and most of his choices will result in him losing the speakership. And then what would happen? It could actually get worse, I'm afraid.

Lastly, keep in mind the Affordable Care Act *was* a compromise. Those further on the left wanted a single-payer system.

 

[SteamKing]

Me too -- I tried to get wood strength properties from the Wood Handbook (a fine publication from the Forest Products Lab), and it was not available.

No wood strength properties...wth?! This is personal now !

You can get the Wood Handbook from other sources:

http://www.esf.edu/scme/wus/documents/WoodHandbook-fplgtr113.pdf

Ditto with physical properties. Honestly, you'd think that the Law of Gravity was a piece of legislation passed by Congress.

 

[alex24]

Oh! I thought the topic discuss here is all about government shut down in relation to Affordable Health Act or better known as Obama care. Why suddenly it change to wood handbook?

 

[Borek]

Why suddenly it change to wood handbook?

Because of the government shutdown.

 

[alex24]

Oh! Sorry. I got a bit confused earlier.

 

[Bystander]

I guess "infantilize" is as good a term as any for people who are acting as spoiled children, IMO...

"36! But last year I had 37!" - Dudley Dursley

Someone who won't take what's offered and ask for more later, rather than demanding everything on the instant is: a) infantile b) a spoiled brat c) a mugger d) a mature statesman?

 

[BobG]

For the record, I am opposed to the shutdown, and I think Obamacare is a good idea, poorly implemented and even more poorly enacted. I think the resistance was entirely predictable, and entirely unnecessary. In the words of Spock, "I said I understand. I did not say I approved."

I think ACA is a bad idea because I'm still very dubious of it actually working.

ACA doesn't affect health care costs at all - it spreads the cost out so that healthy people (especially young healthy people who don't believe disaster will ever befall them) will help pay for the medical costs of sick people. So will buying health insurance be preferable to paying a "tax" for not having health insurance? Possibly, but probably only after a person has paid the "tax" at least once in many cases. And, more importantly, is the "tax" high enough to encourage purchasing health insurance given the constant rise in medical costs (and health insurance). Will the "tax" keep up?

I just see a lot of problems with this, with one of them being that on top of rising medical costs, you have to toss in an insurance company, which has to make a profit being the middleman between your money and your doctor.

While I'm opposed to a socialized health care system where the government is the middleman, I'd actually find that preferable to having an insurance company as the middleman.

None the less, I'm also opposed to the shutdown. When Congress fails to pass a budget, I consider that to be a major failure by Congress. They may fail to do things I like, may do things I don't like, and I just have to accept that as the way democracy works.

But I think failing to keep the government operating just falls below the competence threshhold.

At least it's a legitimate failure - as opposed to the debt ceiling debate. The debt ceiling debate just plain violates the laws of logic. Congress orders the government to spend this amount of money on this thing, but then says it's illegal to obtain the money necessary to execute the law (or resolution) that Congress passed. That's just stupid (not to mention a lot more damaging than the current shutdown).

Either way, it comes down to "just do your job", with your job being to keep government functioning. I wouldn't even dream of asking Congress to do its job well. At this point, "just do your job" seems to be a pipe dream.

 

[Vic Sandler]

I guess he didn't mean this the way he said it. Perhaps they don't communicate because they can't communicate.

If you're going to be insulted ... and if you're going to be spoken down to and there's going to be this air of arrogance, you're only going to make things worse

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/04/politics/government-shutdown-main/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

 

[Borg]

Workers at the National Weather Service are trying to tell the lawmakers please pay us.

 

[Borek]

The more I read, the more I think about decline of Poland in 16th-17th-18th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberum_veto

 

[Astronuc]

The deficiencies in the Affordable Care Act do have to be addressed, as do the chronic deficits and burgeoning debt, as does the anemic growth of the economy, . . . .

As the government shutdown that began Tuesday moves into its first weekend, outrage and derisive jokes have given way to a depressed acceptance. This is what political life in 2013 has become. This is the inevitable result when most of the essential jobs in Washington involve the manufacture of partisan talking points.

. . . .

http://news.yahoo.com/six-lessons-of-the-government-shutdown-165701986.html

 

[OmCheeto]

The more I read, the more I think about decline of Poland in 16th-17th-18th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberum_veto

Fascinating. I'm learning so much history this week.

Many historians hold that the principle of liberum veto was a major cause of the deterioration of the Commonwealth political system—particularly in the 18th century, when foreign powers bribed Sejm members to paralyze its proceedings—and the Commonwealth's eventual destruction...

Strategic financial meddling by outside sources. hmmm... Where have I ranted about that to no end?

hmmm... It's Saturday, and I feel like a short rant:

On Wednesday, I was joking with some co-workers that they should charge the tea partiers with treason, and just shoot them all.

On Thursday, while eating lunch, I watched the TV in the cafeteria when a news story interrupted CNN's regularly scheduled banality: the Capitol was shut down because of a shooting.
Then I wished that I hadn't made that joke about shooting people.
After lunch, an acquaintance from Russia told me that it was the 20th anniversary of Yeltsin shooting up the Russian White House, which is apparently their equivalent of our Capitol building. I told her about the shooting at our Capitol building, and mentioned that maybe Obama had lost it, and pulled a Yeltsin, as I didn't know at that time that the entire incident was caused by some woman off of her meds.

On Friday, I listened to more stories of the "1993 Russian constitutional crisis" from both my Russian acquaintance and her husband. They were both living in Moscow when it was going on. I learned a lot of things. I also decided never to ask either one of them about that time in Russia, as the incident, and what happened afterwards, sounded dreadful.

A brief synopsis is here: Two Russians Walk Into a Parliamentary Crisis...

What is a president in a presidential constitutional republic to do when faced with an intransigent, bull-headed faction among his people's representatives?

...

Then Yeltsin did this...

http://www.newrepublic.com/sites/default/files/u180378/1993-russia-inline.jpg​

I've often wondered how there could now be so many billionaires in Russia, when just 20 years ago, no one was "officially" rich. Listening to the stories of my two Russian acquaintances, it sounded a bit like Orwell's Animal Farm. Some Russians were more equal than others.

But that's a digression into corruption, lawlessness, and general greed, which we don't have here.

And as I mentioned, it's Saturday, and the sun is shining. I think I'll take my boat to the river, and go for a cruise.

 

[AlephZero]

I don't believe that is the case. Speaker Boehner (not Boehmer) has had primary challengers from further Right before. In 2012, he beat David Lewis by more than a factor of 5. In 2010, when Tea Party support was at its zenith, he beat his rightward challenger by more like 20:1.

This is pretty much in line with UK mainstream news reporting IMO. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24388669

What I think you are missing is how deeply unpopular Obamacare is in certain sectors.

Indeed:

Ryan Lizza of the New Yorker looked at their congressional districts and found that, wacko or not, these representatives are reflecting the will of the voters who sent them to Washington, a decidedly different demographic than America at large.

They "represent an America where the population is getting whiter, where there are few major cities, where Obama lost the last election in a landslide, and where the Republican Party is becoming more dominant and more popular," he wrote. "Meanwhile, in national politics, each of these trends is actually reversed."

 

[mheslep]

Ryan Lizza of the New Yorker looked at their congressional districts and found that, wacko or not, these representatives are reflecting the will of the voters who sent them to Washington, a decidedly different demographic than America at large.

They "represent an America where the population is getting whiter, where there are few major cities, where Obama lost the last election in a landslide, and where the Republican Party is becoming more dominant and more popular," he wrote. "Meanwhile, in national politics, each of these trends is actually reversed."

It is one thing to observe there are conflicting trends in national politics and thus the divided control of federal government. But the 2010 elections resulted in a dramatic gain of 63 seats for the GOP in the US House, six seats in the Senate including Kennedy's seat in Mass., 690 seats in state legislatures, and a total of 29 governorship's. The GOP still holds the US House after the 2012 elections and thus the power the purse.

When this majority in the US House, where all seats face election based on population every two years, is dismissed as the result of some localized minority demographic of "whiter" guys in the boonies, then i) the observation itself is "wacko", or ii) is more tedious agenda politics in the media.

 

[edward]

Just a little rant:

China has to love seeing this. Obama was supposed to make a trip to other Asian countries to gain some influence this week.

The mention of outside influence above got me to thinking: What are all of the lobbyist doing right now? Not much probably. They don't just lobby congress they also lobby government agencies.

I really need to know how much chicken manure the USDA allows in cattle feed. Oops there are other sources, it is 20% chicken poop.

What I am getting at is who lobbied the USDA to get chicken manure allowed in cattle feed in the first place? It will probably turn out to be the same people who will get an end to the shut down and get congress to churning out BS again.

 

[Office_Shredder]

When this majority in the US House, where all seats face election based on population every two years, is dismissed as the result of some localized minority demographic of "whiter" guys in the boonies, then i) the observation itself is "wacko", or ii) is more tedious agenda politics in the media.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2012I will simply observe that more people voted for Democrats than Republicans in the 2012 House elections. If you choose to believe this is a mandate to end Obamacare then there is nothing I can say to dissuade that.

EDIT TO ADD:
The House has voted to give back pay to all furloughed workers... I assume the Senate will vote for it too:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...-to-give-furloughed-federal-workers-back-pay/

 

[OmCheeto]

This is pretty much in line with UK mainstream news reporting IMO. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24388669
...

Ha!

That look.

Justin Amash has voted against his party leadership more than any other member of the House​

I think I like this kid.

Oh wait!

On August 3, 2010, Amash won the five-way Republican primary for the seat vacated by retiring Republican Vern Ehlers with over 40% of the vote. Amash was a favorite of the Tea Party movement...

and

On December 3, 2012, Amash was removed from the Budget Committee. Politico quoted a Republican Steering Committee member as saying that Amash, along with colleagues Tim Huelskamp and David Schweikert, who were also stripped of committee assignments, were "the most egregious(shocking, appalling, terrible, awful, horrendous, frightful, atrocious, abominable, abhorrent, outrageous) [donkey perforations]" in the House Republican Conference.

Never mind...

 

[Vanadium 50]

Me too -- I tried to get wood strength properties from the Wood Handbook (a fine publication from the Forest Products Lab), and it was not available.

From Carl M. Cannon: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/10/06/the_self-inflicted_wounds_of_bare-knuckle_governing_120216.html

... in a memo from White House Office of Management and Budget Director Sylvia Burwell providing guidance to federal agencies and departments. Aside from prefacing this Sept. 17 memo with a political talking point (Congress is to blame, not the administration), she instructs agency heads not to consider whether the cost of shutting down a government website is more expensive than keeping it running.

And that, not Tea Party intractability, is why Yosemite’s website has been down since last week.

So there's your answer. It probably would have been cheaper to leave it up but not updated than to take it down. (That's what we do over closures - we keep them up, but if they crash, they aren't fixed)

 

[Office_Shredder]

OK, I realize this is a bit off topic but what is the cost difference between leaving the website up and running or replacing it with a shutdown home page? It seems like the difference is trivial in terms of effort and cost (as in, my understanding of websites is that this should take maybe 30 keystrokes to achieve once the new shutdown page is designed)

 

[Vanadium 50]

I also doubt the cost of either option differs by much - maybe an hour of someone's time to archive the old content, put the redirects in place, test things, and make them live. But the OMB has decided - the websites stay down.

 

[russ_watters]

So in the game of irresponsibility, who is winning? The side that created the shutdown or the side that purposely sabotages government work to try to make it as painful and costly as possible (incidentally, I think that's the same sides and tactics as in the sequester).

 

[FlexGunship]

Naive question on this topic...

The government shutdown (ignoring the temporary measure passed to keep governmental employees working) is a forced spending-stop measure right? Without approved appropriates, money can't be spent... therefore governmental functions are halted.

If this leads the an actual reduction in the amount of money spent (i.e. a federally funded park is closed, so no money is spent operating the park) then shouldn't the shutdown, to some degree, be considered an end unto itself even if it's only temporary?

It's not just a negotiating tactic... it's a result in its own right.

If you make gross assumptions (maybe incorrectly) that funding happens in a continuous stream (i.e. one week is about 1/52nd of the budget), then each week of the shutdown you should save about 2% of the total budget. (Or 1% or 0.000001%... or whatever!)

Okay, I know that totally doesn't actually work. But surely some amount of cost is saved by not operating all of those services.

I don't know how to ask this question without having someone just nitpick the details.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Naive question on this topic...

...
If you make gross assumptions (maybe incorrectly) that funding happens in a continuous stream (i.e. one week is about 1/52nd of the budget), then each week of the shutdown you should save about 2% of the total budget. (Or 1% or 0.000001%... or whatever!)

Okay, I know that totally doesn't actually work. But surely some amount of cost is saved by not operating all of those services.

I don't know how to ask this question without having someone just nitpick the details.

There are savings with some expenses not related to employee salaries and most benefits. In the past government employees have aways gotten the back pay and benefits lost during the shutdown. I imagine that the salaries and benefits are the major part of the costs of government. Other contractual obligations would also have to be paid.

 

[FlexGunship]

There are savings with some expenses not related to employee salaries and most benefits. In the past government employees have aways gotten the back pay and benefits lost during the shutdown. I imagine that the salaries and benefits are the major part of the costs of government.

Understood. I have a friend that works at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. He was furloughed all of last week. He went back to work today under the promise of receiving back pay.

Perhaps this is the new mode of operation. In addition to our current stream of debt, congress will create a secondary debt source in the form of "back pay" to government employees. If I were Neal Stephenson, I'd also speculate that there would be a secondary economy formed from the trading these "promised dollars" with investors paying for them based on the perceived likelihood that they'd be paid in the future and at what rate.

 

[BobG]

The perceived likelihood is about 99.99% that they'll receive 100% of their back pay. That's only based on every other "failure to pass a budget" shutdown in the government's history, but it's hard to find people that will acknowledge that there's a possibility they won't get 100% of their back pay.

If it were only an occasional government shutdown with a nearly 100% chance of receiving their pay, anyway, the shutdown wouldn't have a huge impact on government personnel.

The problem is that this shutdown comes on top of furloughs inflicted because of sequestration. Those furloughs are real and that money is lost for workers (1 day a week, 1 day every two weeks, depending on how much depletion of manning an office can stand - plus the caveat that you can't use a vacation day on a furlough day, not too mention that if 10% to 20% of their staff is furloughed, it's harder to get vacation days, period).

On top of that, we have another shutdown looming due to the debt ceiling that could result in more furloughs that may or may not be compensated for (it's a different species than the typical "failure to pass a budget" shutdown).

All in all, it's going to get harder and harder to hire government employees. Maybe not being able to fill some of those slots will be seen as a good thing by some, but, unfortunately, those aren't the slots that will be impacted the most. Some experts are worried about an exodus of brain power.

All in all, it's becoming a lot less fun to be associated with the federal government, period, whether you're a federal employee or a contractor supporting the government. The smart prospect might want higher pay to compensate for the lack in government stability.

 

[Bystander]

There are savings with some expenses not related to employee salaries and most benefits. In the past government employees have aways gotten the back pay and benefits lost during the shutdown. I imagine that the salaries and benefits are the major part of the costs of government. Other contractual obligations would also have to be paid.

Five million employees? S & B ca. $200k/a? Is one terabuck --- a large part of the cost, but not the major cost.

 

[azdavesoul]

park-service-oks-immigration-reform-rally-on-closed-national-mall
It appears that the National Parks are only closed to some of the public…

 

[Office_Shredder]

Compare to

http://www.latimes.com/nation/natio...sburg-rally-canceled-20131002,0,6070653.story

and this is clearly politically motivated and nothing more. I was generally supportive of the Obama administrative but this is garbage.

 

[lisab]

Compare to

http://www.latimes.com/nation/natio...sburg-rally-canceled-20131002,0,6070653.story

and this is clearly politically motivated and nothing more. I was generally supportive of the Obama administrative but this is garbage.

Well I won't shed any tears for the KKK's loss of a protest venue with historical interest.

If that was the *only* thing canceled due to park closures then there may be a case for calling it 'political'. But plenty of gatherings were cancelled. For example, this lovely couple's wedding:

http://wcfcourier.com/news/local/go...cle_813ccb56-c8e0-5096-a16d-f69c5f4bfecb.html

The shut down didn't deter this couple, although the nuptials seem to have taken place somewhere less spectacular than Yosemite:

http://www.10news.com/news/san-diego-bride-doesnt-let-shut-down-stop-wedding-10052013

I'm sure there were countless canceled family vacations and hiking trips as well. So I don't see the KKK's cancellation as politically motivated.

 

[Office_Shredder]

lisab, the point is the post above mine is about a rally which was allowed to continue, the reason given being "first amendment rights". If that was the real reason then they wouldn't have canceled any rallies. I'm not complaining about things being canceled, I'm complaining about things being canceled and other things not being canceled, when there is zero difference between the situations other than how much the Obama administration likes the people running them.

 

[edward]

Awww poor old KKK.

GRANTS PASS, Ore. — The U.S. Forest Service confirmed Friday it is shutting down logging operations on national forests across the country due to the partial shutdown of the federal government.

The agency plans to notify 450 timber purchasers across the country early next week that timber sales and stewardship contracts will be suspended, Forest Service spokesman Leo Kay said in an email.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/forest-service-stopping-logging-on-national-forests-across-country-due-to-government-shutdown/2013/10/04/8955a55a-2d50-11e3-b141-298f46539716_story.html

 

[lisab]

lisab, the point is the post above mine is about a rally which was allowed to continue, the reason given being "first amendment rights". If that was the real reason then they wouldn't have canceled any rallies. I'm not complaining about things being canceled, I'm complaining about things being canceled and other things not being canceled, when there is zero difference between the situations other than how much the Obama administration likes the people running them.

That article says the permit for the KKK really was recinded:

The Confederate White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan had received a special use permit to hold a demonstration at the Gettysburg National Military Park on Saturday. But the permit has been rescinded because of the federal government shutdown, which has closed monuments and parks across the nation, according to a park news release.

I don't see in the article where any rally was allowed to continue.

 

[Office_Shredder]

park-service-oks-immigration-reform-rally-on-closed-national-mall
It appears that the National Parks are only closed to some of the public…

Lisab, I'm talking about this post

 

[OmCheeto]

This morning, on the way to work, the talk radio people were going off about the shutdown of the "Amber Alert System"

Apparently, it's back up.

Though, this morning, I thought about it, and, once again, I sided with Ms. Warren.

Obamacare, aka, the Affordable Care Act, means thousands fewer kids will die.
The Amber Alert System going down, will mean about 2 kids per year will die.

And we will all be sad.

Media.

Kill your media, kids...

 

[lisab]

Lisab, I'm talking about this post

My apologies. I'm sorry, I missed that link altogether!

 

[edward]

That article says the permit for the KKK really was recinded:



I don't see in the article where any rally was allowed to continue.

The rally was held in downtown Gettysburg. The Gettysburg National Military Park is nearly 6,000 acres. It doesn't look like the KKK needed that much space.

GETTYSBURG, Pa. (AP) - Four members of the Ku Klux Klan held an event in downtown Gettysburg after the federal government shutdown canceled their plans to rally on the nearby battlefield park grounds.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/nation_world/20131005_ap_7a79d67f953c4e35bb706e698fb4d68f.html#WuEkQsAYGq3bScGW.99

 

[Office_Shredder]

No, but that's not the point. One rally was allowed on a closed space, and the reason given is that the First Amendment apparently trumps government shutdown. But this rally was not allowed on a closed space, despite the First Amendment. Since generally nothing has been allowed, the one rally being allowed is clearly the Obama administration playing favoritism because that rally is being attended by Democrats and supports a liberal cause.

 

[BobG]

No, but that's not the point. One rally was allowed on a closed space, and the reason given is that the First Amendment apparently trumps government shutdown. But this rally was not allowed on a closed space, despite the First Amendment. Since generally nothing has been allowed, the one rally being allowed is clearly the Obama administration playing favoritism because that rally is being attended by Democrats and supports a liberal cause.

1) You're comparing a park in Pennsylvania to what's essentially a large town square (or national square, in this case). Different officials in charge - different interpretation and implementation. In other words, I doubt park officials at each park are contacting the White House to ask how they should handle specific situations.

2) Saying only one rally has been allowed on the national mall is clearly incorrect. A previous "rally" by veterans was led by Congressmen Michele Bachman, Steve Palazzo, and a few other Congressmen. While they did send a request to be allowed to hold the rally in spite of the shutdown, what they actually did was just ignore the barriers and hold the rally anyway.

No one arrested them for trespassing.

In fact, considering the immigration reform rally also had Congressmen involved, including Nancy Pelosi and Robert Menendez, it's at least equally likely that allowing the immigration rally to go on had more to do with the precedent set by the veterans' rally than political ideology.

What are they really going to say? The barriers are meaningless because we're not actually going to arrest anyone for walking past them and we're especially not going to arrest Congressmen that ignore them?

Clearly, what the KKK should do is to move their rally to the national mall and find some Congressmen that will lead their rally. No one will bother them and they'll even give a decent excuse as to why they won't.