Government Shutdown, DC-eye View

[neadods]

At this point, I'm actually all for a shutdown rather than drawing out the endless "one more week/two more weeks/another day or so" uncertainty that we're all dealing with. That doesn't mean I think Government shutdowns are a good thing beyond giving a lot of people a real clue-by-four about what the government actually *does* and provides, and it's more than most people think.

I was around during the last shutdown. Here is an excellent article on what actually stopped.

Government Shutdown = Government-run museums and landmarks shut down. That means the entire Smithsonian complex. Also any monument that you have to pass a door to get into. (You can still look at the Jefferson memorial, for example, or see Lincoln in his chair, but you can't go into the Washington Monument. In NY, you can't go up the Statue of Liberty.) No Library of Congress, not even online (because no IT personnel to monitor it). No National Zoo. (Wherein last time the manure piled up because while people made sure the animals were fed, nobody was being paid to shovel the shit.)

Government-provided benefits and services slow or stop. No tax refunds. Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid slow down; no new people join the system. No veteran's benefits.

In DC, it means massive numbers of people out of work. And I'm not just talking about the mid and low-level Government employees. I'm talking about:
- Government contractors (who outnumber Govvies something like 10 to 1)
- Food service personnel. Not just the food service/cooks inside the government buildings, but the ones inside the many Smithsonian buildings and all the restaurants around the now-shuttered buildings which are no longer feeding tourists and workers.
- Cleaning service personnel.
- Tour guides/souvenir stands/cabbies/etc facing a severe reduction in tourist dollars -- and right when the tourist season kicks off, too.
- basically, anyone and everyone doing support.


And the ones who are working, the essential personnel who have to keep showing up regardless - they don't get paid. They can't go find other work, they have no guarantee that they'll get paid for the work they're doing. I'm seeing people saying "oh, the cops'll be okay; nobody will stop soldiers' pay; mailmen still get their checks."

No. They DON'T. Work, yes. Pay? Not so much.


What does that add up to? THOUSANDS of people who, even if they have savings enough to make it through the uncertainty for however long it lasts -- last time it was almost an entire month -- who are all doing one thing in unison - Not. Spending. Money.

And that trickles down the economic uncertainty to all the places locals support - an instant throttle on food, entertainment, travel, education, repair, even health - any non-essential item will be put on hold until a shutdown is over and back pay is made available, if it ever will be.


Now isn't that just what a shaky economy needs?

Comments

[neotoma.livejournal.com]

You know, I have no idea what the hell will happen at my job, since we're a repository for a government funded research institute. We might keep going, since I think the funds have already been disbursed, but they might shut us down. Or shut down some of the contracts but not others.

If they do shut us down, I might still be required to come into work, but get seconded to other labs. I have absolutely no idea.

I should ask about that...

[neadods.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it's starting to look like you may want to ask. There are still 3 days for this to be turned around, but.

I'm holding off until I know before I set any NYC plans or finalize the date to get the floors refinished.

[stlscape.livejournal.com]

last time it was almost an entire month

You were actually out of work that long? I'm a Govie, and my agency was only closed three days back then. (We're not a tourists-can-visit site, though, and not in D.C.) And, no. A shut-down isn't something to be happy about.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

I am not now nor was I ever a Govie, and watching a couple of my friends be unpaid essential personnel for 21 days was a major reason why I stopped applying for gov jobs.

DC's such a company town that there are HUGE repercussions to such things, moreso than anywhere else, I think.

OTOH, I rather vindictively think that shutting it down for a week would be a really good object lesson in just what happens when you assume that everything the Gov't does is bad and/or incompetent.

[sethrak.livejournal.com]

Sadly, I fear the object lesson will be lost on those who need it most, because they will then turn around and blame it all on the Democrats, without a trace of irony or self-awareness.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

Quite likely. Although framing it as "we refuse to compromise or deal and you don't let us walk all over you" is not going to win independents come 2012.

[stlscape.livejournal.com]

Just found out why last time we were shut down for such a few days - it's due to how our operation is funded.

I've got my fingers crossed that there won't be a shutdown. While, yeah, a shutdown should serve as a good object lesson, sadly I don't think those who need to receive the object lesson information will accept it.

[redpanda13.livejournal.com]

From one of the Guardian's American columnists:

Meanwhile, a few things have been left largely undiscussed.

To begin with, the domestic discretionary portion of the budget has shrunk drastically over the years, from 22% of the budget in 1980 to 12% today. To be sure it has increased under Barack Obama – as it did under George W Bush – in raw terms, but overall it's a much smaller part of what government does. Why? First, because our entitlement programmes (social security, but especially Medicare and Medicaid) are eating up more of the budget. Second, because military spending has gone wild in recent years (turns out wars cost money, even though Bush tried to keep the wars off the books) up almost 60% over the last decade.

Third – and here's the big thing: the government is collecting far less in taxes, adjusted for inflation, than it used to. Especially from the rich. If wealthy Americans were paying taxes at the rate they did 50 years ago, says former Clinton labour secretary Robert Reich, the government would be taking in $350bn more a year: budget woes over.

But forget going back 50 years, when taxes were high even by my standards. If we merely went back to the 1980s, the days of the great conservative hero Ronald Reagan, we'd be in far better fiscal shape. Taxes on capital gains, rich people's chief income source, were 35% then. Now they're 15%. Inheritance taxes have been reduced to a fraction of what they were. All this as the super-rich have grown richer, controlling more and more wealth. And while income taxes for middle-income families have gone down a bit, they still pay a far higher percentage of their income in payroll taxes.

Obama and the Democrats must put these issues on the table. The Tea Party argument that there's bloat and waste in Washington will always fall on receptive ears in America. But the counter-argument isn't to quibble about how much to cut. The counter-argument is to say we believe in a society where the wealthy pay their share, which they plainly have not been doing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/apr/05/us-government-shutdown-tea-party

[neadods.livejournal.com]

The counter-argument is to say we believe in a society where the wealthy pay their share, which they plainly have not been doing.

THIS, THIS, THIS! Why are the big businesses not paying taxes? The tea party wants to take government spending back to pre-war levels; fine. But it doesn't want to take business tax back to pre-war levels, which was how the system worked.

And don't start me on Reagan. We don't all think he's a great hero...

[redpanda13.livejournal.com]

Reagan: far from it. But the point is that even the conservatives' idol of the 1980's would be a "socialist" by the GOP's wacked-out standards these days. Things have been dragged so far to the right in this country that I'm in a constant state of scream.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

Glenn Beck was right (even a stopped clock, etc.) when he said that the Overton Window has shifted significantly.

Problem is, it's shifted into Cloud-Cookoo Land.

[suze2000.livejournal.com]

OMG it's the same here. The govt keeps cutting company tax and the like. I don't get it. The rich have the money to lobby govt, and they spend it. While the poor just get poorer, but at least they have a couple of lobby groups (ridiculously underfunded). Meanwhile, those of us who are neither rich nor poor have no-one to speak up for us. We're sick to death of supporting both groups. There's never ANY consideration in the budget for us, it's always tax cuts for the rich and the poor, while we're slowly, inexorably joining the poor. Mind you, our outrageous housing costs have a big part to play in this, but the govt is not fixing this either because the baby boomers are getting richer off it and they are the biggest voting block. *sigh*

I can't believe there are people who have to come to work for NO PAY!! What's with that? I predict a mass sick-out. That's what I would be doing (calling in sick). Hey, if you won't pay me, why should I work?

[neadods.livejournal.com]

I predict a mass sick-out. That's what I would be doing (calling in sick). Hey, if you won't pay me, why should I work?

I don't think a lot of people will. Because there's another side to the equation, the one that nobody ever talks about when they're bitching endlessly about parasitic Government workers:

Gov't people very often get paid a lot less than their compatriots in private sector. So the real reasons most of 'em go into that work are:
- better benefits (which can't be taken away in a shutdown) and
- a deep knowledge that the job they do *IS* too important to walk away from. (And in many cases, they're right. We need cops, firefighters, teachers, counter-terrorist specialists, Medicare doctors, etc. 24/7/365)

[suze2000.livejournal.com]

Yes, I work in a hospital and I feel a strong calling/obligation to my job. I also feel though that 80% of the work that I do is non-essential and if we went out on strike or had a 50% cut in staff for a few days, it would be okay in the end.

[shawan-7.livejournal.com]

What I remember best is that the Vermeer exhibit came to the National Gallery in D.C.

And the Government shutdown shut the exhibit. There was much anger about this because these paintings travel once in a blue moon.

And the shutdown went on and on. The length of time the paintings were allowed in D.C. was shorter and shorter.

So Rusty Powell, the Gallery's director sought private donations, and as a consequence, the Gallery re-opened but only for the Vermeer exhibit. The crowds were huge. It was the only game in town.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

This time there are all the for-pay museums to entertain... but who's going to drop $25 at the Spy Museum when they may need that money to eat on next week?

I remember the Vermeer exhibit. It was stunningly beautiful. (Kind of a pity not to have an "in" at the Smithsonian anymore, innit?)

[queenmaggie.livejournal.com]

And I missed it...because I couldn't get in. I was so angry about that. I still passionately hate hate hate Newt Gingrich...for that and many other reasons.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

He's back in town, *still* claiming that it was Clinton's fault and generally sucking up to Tea Partiers.

[tiggerallyn.livejournal.com]

Now isn't that just what a shaky economy needs?

If you're a Republican, yes.

Mitch McConnell said that the Republicans' only priority was to make sure that Obama was a one-term President. The easiest way to make that happen is to tank the economy. And as much as Republicans like to say that government spending is the problem causing the stalled out economy, a lot of Republicans understand that suddenly turning off the spigot of government money is going to have negative economic repercussions. If even a short shutdown can help tip the economy back over to recession, or at the very least put the brakes back on a slow recovery, that makes the hard climb to unseating Obama in 2012 a little easier.

The only problem with that analysis, though? I don't think John Boehner is that smart. I think his only motivation is to make sure he's not the first Speaker of the House in history to be deposed by his own caucus. Boehner's mistake was that he thought he could control his caucus. What he didn't realize is that the Teahadists are an ideology unto themselves, and the Republican caucus in the House is closer to a coalition of two minority parties than a single unified caucus.

But there's someone on the Republican side who does understand. Sinking the economy — or encouraging it to take on water — is in their party's best interests. It's not in the best interests of the country. It's not in the best interests of the world. It's sure as hell not in the best interests of the constituents they purport to represent. If breaking all the china brings them back into power, the Republican Party will do it, without question.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

"The easiest way to make that happen is to tank the economy."

I thought exactly that thought when I first heard his statement. Yes, the Republicans have the purse strings (re: the House). But if all incumbents lose in 2012, they'll be better off.

They'll have the executive, and they'll have the Senate.

Which means, they'll have their judges.

Which will then, as we've seen Alito/Scalia/Roberts/Thomas do (depressingly well) recently, give them the ultimate rubber stamp to whatever they want. They'll gladly give up the house for that *permanent* power.

And this has nothing to do with abortion but everything to do with rubber stamping warrantless wiretapping, permanent rendition without charges, the end of any form of campaign finance reform, the end of any restrictions on the FCC controlling internet censorship, the end of any chance of getting religion out of our military or laws at the most basic level, then end of all of it.

Reid is weak. He and Leahy *never* should have caved on letting the Republicans control the nomination (non-)process like they have. Because just like the budget "crisis" that isn't, the judicial crisis created by the vacuum the Republicans are creating today will reach the fore in 4 years to where whomever is in the Senate will have no choice but to accept the then President's nominations.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

Mitch McConnell said that the Republicans' only priority was to make sure that Obama was a one-term President. The easiest way to make that happen is to tank the economy.

I'm pretty sure Newt thought the same thing about Clinton, and yet shutting the Gov't down pretty much handed the next election to the Dems. Cutting the budget next year isn't going to infuriate independents and non-tea partiers half as much as making sure they don't get their tax rebates or Social Security checks or get trickle-down loss of work this year. Even if we double-dip the recession, the campaign ads write themselves. "He campaigned on going to Washington to create jobs. Then he put blah-de-billion people out of work." "She shut the Government because she thought Exxon needed more federal handouts than your child's school."

And that's not even getting into the backlash of local voters (in, like, say, Wisconsin & Texas) who thought they were voting for government fiscal restraint and instead were told they'd given a mandate to repeal collective bargaining over working conditions and fast-tracking anti-abortion legislation. Both of which stand excellent chances of costing their respective states millions in legal challenges. Real cost-effective. Absolutely addresses the jobs issue. *eyeroll*

Boehner's mistake was that he thought he could control his caucus.

And it was a whopper. That Michele Bauchmann decided to do a tea party answer to the State of the Union address as well as the official opposition party response was a gigantic clue that the Tea Party had no intention of playing ball.

...and (says the unrepentant Democrat) we see yet again what happens when people get elected after running on a platform of "elect me to the Government because I have complete contempt for it and don't give a shit how it works!"

[tiggerallyn.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty sure Newt thought the same thing about Clinton, and yet shutting the Gov't down pretty much handed the next election to the Dems.

Last fall, when the Republicans started talking about a shutdown, I couldn't understand why they were making those noises. Hadn't the government shutdown backfired on them spectacularly? Clinton entered 1995 trying to assert that he was still relevant, but within eighteen months he looked presidential and Gingrich looked like a poo-flinging monkey.

Republicans actually believe they would have won the 1995 government shutdown, if only Gingrich and Dole hadn't blinked.

McConnell won't blink; that's why the last two years have been such a mess. Boehner may blink, but he knows that if he does he'll be the Caesar to Eric Cantor's Brutus.

I expect this budget fight to be very messy.

I expect the vote to increase the debt ceiling to be worse; Boehner is now claiming that he has to be able to pass legislation only with Republican votes, and there's no way he'll get to 218 votes for a debt ceiling increase only with Republicans.

Where did all the sanity on the right go?

[neadods.livejournal.com]

Where did all the sanity on the right go?

I've wondered that for a while, but it seems like right now it's been handed over without question to the proudly know-nothing loudly screaming Tea Partiers, who simply cannot grasp that we are all citizens together and they have to sometimes work with people they don't agree with.

Republicans actually believe they would have won the 1995 government shutdown, if only Gingrich and Dole hadn't blinked.

According to Newt as he sucks up to the Tea Party, yes, but not according to the older, more experienced heads in the GOP talking to the press today. Those who were around for the last shut down are still smarting from that electoral spanking and they just can't get the new kids to grasp that history repeats.

WTF is going on with the supermajority thing, I don't know. Unless Boehner is trying to put pressure on tea partiers and/or wash his hands of the upcoming wreck?

[redpanda13.livejournal.com]

Same columnist I quoted yesterday has a new column addressing this: old guard GOP says this is going to hurt them worse than it hurts Obama, but Tea Partiers don't care; and it may be a ploy to hurt Obama's re-election chances by buggering up the economy.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2011/apr/06/government-shutdown-federal-budget

[darthfox.livejournal.com]

Tens of thousands. Last time it was eight hundred thousand. My last housemate was in the Foreign Service, and had been stationed abroad at the time - and was furloughed for the whole time, which meant she missed umpteen kinds of payments on things, which did some damage to her credit. What a good idea.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

And again - the political ads just write themselves. "They promised to put people to work. Instead..."

If it does shut, I truly don't expect it to last that long again. The backlash will be too big, the economic consequences too severe.

[faireraven.livejournal.com]

What's truly ironic is that this entire scenario is playing out like an episode of The West Wing.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

I'm still an Obama supporter, but I'd drop him like a hot rock if it were really possible to vote Bartlett.

[harmonyfb.livejournal.com]

Last night, reading the news, I said "The goddamn congress ought to have its pay docked every day that they fuck around and don't pass a budget".

Manly said: "The problem is, none of those people would care - they're all filthy rich."

And then I went and drank some beer, because it's true. Not a goddam one of them would care if they didn't get paid for weeks and weeks - because they could live for YEARS on their assets. None of them have the slightest clue what it's like to be afraid that they won't have enough gas money to get them to work all week unless they don't pay some other pressing bill. None of them have laid awake crying because they can pay for medicine or food, but not both. None of them sweat over their jobs because losing that paycheck means they're out on the streets because they used up any small reserves last time they went unpaid.

Makes me so angry I just can't even....AUGH.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

Believe it or not, some Congresscritters have suggested the same thing. It'll never pass, but it's not entirely ignored.

None of them sweat over their jobs because losing that paycheck means they're out on the streets because they used up any small reserves last time they went unpaid

... nor will they have to face the unemployment and welfare shutoffs that they voted for to keep people from being "welfare wolves" or whatever the insult was at the time.

Mind you, there is the guy claiming he can feel people's pain because he can't make ends meet on his 174,000 salary - after all, that doesn't make him *rich* or anything, not when his wife can afford to stays home and he's got all those kids.

[chibiaingeal.livejournal.com]

Fortuantely for me (and I had the same fortune the last time), our contract with the government is fully funded so I get to keep coming to work and I will get paid. But there will be many many other governmetn contractors who don't have such fortune.

(The last time was really fortuante as our client had just funded our contract a few days before the shut down...)

Local radio station is asking people to call in on their "Talk Bacck" line asking of the think Congress should still get paid. The answer has been, so far, an overwhelmingly and emphatic "No!"

[neadods.livejournal.com]

Oh, hell, no! They shouldn't get a dime during the shutdown and *they* shouldn't get back pay when the Gov't comes back online. ESPECIALLY Mr. "I can't live on my tiny Congressional salary."

[neadods.livejournal.com]

For your sakes, I hope it doesn't shut down and nobody gets laid off.

I think the vote can be a rock and a hard place - if a vote to keep the Gov't open includes defunding, say, health care (including stripping the people who just came under new expansions of their care) and reinstates the donut hole - which is worse? The gov't shutting down or operating while taking away vital services/reinstating high medical prices?

(I may just be thinking of the FDA putting in a smackdown instead of letting the free market take its course when one company got a license to make an orphan drug... and then raised the price from $20 a dose to $15,000 a dose.)

[badgermirlacca.livejournal.com]

I thought mail workers would continue to be paid, because the USPS doesn't get government funding. Although I may be very wrong about that, of course.

During the last shutdown, the national labs kept on going, because they'd gotten their funding at the beginning of the year. I keep wondering, though, why someone in the Tea Party isn't yelling about how much it's going to cost to shut the machine down, and then (one hopes) restart it again. Oh wait, they want to cancel funding for all those silly museums and such anyway.

They are idiots, I tell you, idiots. I am working part-time at an apartment complex which provides affordable housing to elderly, the disabled, and families. Those vouchers are going to evaporate. The residents are going to be affected, and so is the apartment complex owner. But hey, all for cutting 66 billion, right?

[neadods.livejournal.com]

As far as I can tell, the Tea Party line is that the Government is bad, so anything that sticks it to The Man is good.

Regardless of how much money it costs.

Especially if that money goes to someone other than them poor people. Poor people shouldn't get any help. Only rich corporations should get help and tax breaks because then their good fortune will trickle down... in a warm, yellow, amonia-scented rain.

[badgermirlacca.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately what they can't get through their thick heads is that "The Man" is ALL of us.

I had this debate with someone I used to consider a friend. She was upset that she had to pay school taxes, because she didn't have kids. It didn't matter that good schools were important to the corporations, large and small, that might provide jobs to the community, or that good schools might educate the kids and a) keep them off the streets and b) provide the advances that might keep her alive. Nope. SHE didn't have kids, so why should she contribute to the community?