Government Shutdown

What, no discussion thread about this yet?

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/04/07/6425922-who-gets-paid-if-theres-a-shutdown-members-of-congress-still-will

In California this is old hat. Every year our senate pushes off the budget until the last possible second, and there's clamor about stuff shutting down. Never happens, though.

I know that I'm certianly for prioritization of goverment expenditure, then just lopping off whatever's at the bottom that we can't afford. Sure, it sucks, and I'm sure some program that I think is important will get cut, but I think it's preposterous that any entity is allowed to spend money it doesn't have.

The State of Pennsylvania shutdown the govt two or three years ago... for a few months.

My friend is a prison guard. Obviously when they say "shutdown" they mean secretaries because ummm... real, essential jobs like guarding prisoners and plowing snow are not optional. They still went to work. They were allowed to collect unemployment. When the government turn back on... they got back pay and kept the unemployment. So... they made more money than normal.

I'd bother to think about this if they sent all the soldiers, air traffic controllers and homeland security folks home... but they will still bomb afganistan, regulate air traffic and finger my nuts at the airports so... meh. Its all nonsense.

This whole thing feels like grandstanding to me.

Yes, a very large one:

Makes for good NewsOpinioTaiment though, don't it?

Oh damn. Guess I won't be going up in the arch. I'm accraphobic anyway. Gravity told me to steady on the ground.

Derick Freese wrote: This whole thing feels like grandstanding to me.

It always is. Note how much weeping and gnashing of teeth you'll hear about the lightning rod issues like armed forces not getting paid and refund checks not getting processed - and not one word about the billions per minute of waste that is also being prevented by this.

On that note, I have a friend who is a federal worker. He'll get a 3-day paid vacation because of this. It's actually CHEAPER to pay him for 3 days of non-work than it is to fill out the paperwork explaining why his pay would be interrupted for 3 days. That factoid alone speaks volumes about why we're berked under the current system.

I am also reminded of the Philadelphia teachers union, who would dink around all summer pretending to negotiate, just so they could strike in early September. They knew full well the idiot public would agree to anything for them to take the brats back off their hands.

I don't get it. I mean, I do, but not really. Under the rules this country was founded upon, this is how the process goes:

House passes budget bill.

Senate passes/fails to pass said bill and then sends it back to the house or onto the Prez.

The president then signs the bill or vetoes it.

What's this secret meeting crap all about? Who knows, but it isn't good for America, no matter which side you're on. Boehner, pass the damn bill you guys want to pass, put it in writing for the country to see. Then send it to the senate. If they reject it, let them, and let them comment on the issues they take with it, again, for the country to see. The senate likes it now? Fan-friggin-tastic, now it's the President's turn. He vetoed it? Really? OK, get a super majority or start over in the house. It's supposed to be transparent and iterative, none of this "get everyone together in a dark room and agree to kickbacks before we even vote" crap.

maybe they are just Rick Rolling us...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZi4JxbTwPo&feature=channel_video_title

Derick Freese wrote: This whole thing feels like grandstanding to me.

Ya think?

Programs! Come get your program! Can't tell one Senator from another without your programs! Step right up!

tuna55 wrote: What's this secret meeting crap all about?

They have to get their spin together for the TV cameras. They're playing a game, and they have to go huddle to decided what is the better move politically. Democrats seem to feel it is in their political best interest to let the Republicans shut it down. Republicans, I'm not so sure. I kinda feel bad, I think, for Boehner. I think he really means it when he says he understands why they shouldn't shut down the government. I think some of the Tea Party folks think it will play well back home if they do. So he seems to be walking a tight rope. I hope what he's doing is waiting to the last second so he can say "we tried our best, but they aren't serious about cutting costs.". But he may have no choice but to shut it down. I'm sure they're doing polling on different spin messages. If they find one that works for them in a shut down, it will shut down. If not, they probably won't.

Duke wrote: On that note, I have a friend who is a federal worker. He'll get a 3-day paid vacation because of this. It's actually CHEAPER to pay him for 3 days of non-work than it is to fill out the paperwork explaining why his pay would be interrupted for 3 days. That factoid alone speaks volumes about why we're berked under the current system.

FWIW. My wife is a contractor that works for the gov. She is also being allowed to use vacation time if the furlough happens only for a few days. In her case, It is being drawn from her accrued vacation time. I dont see how that is such a problem.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

Derick Freese wrote: This whole thing feels like grandstanding to me.

Ya think? Programs! Come get your program! Can't tell one Senator from another without your programs! Step right up!

tuna55 wrote: What's this secret meeting crap all about?

They have to get their spin together for the TV cameras. They're playing a game, and they have to go huddle to decided what is the better move politically. Democrats seem to feel it is in their political best interest to let the Republicans shut it down. Republicans, I'm not so sure. I kinda feel bad, I think, for Boehner. I think he really means it when he says he understands why they shouldn't shut down the government. I think some of the Tea Party folks think it will play well back home if they do. So he seems to be walking a tight rope. I hope what he's doing is waiting to the last second so he can say "we tried our best, but they aren't serious about cutting costs.". But he may have no choice but to shut it down. I'm sure they're doing polling on different spin messages. If they find one that works for them in a shut down, it will shut down. If not, they probably won't.

I am a "tea party folks" for the record, but that's my point. If any of our politicians in charge had a backbone, they'd just pass the damn bill in the house and put it on paper. If they did it the news would go like this:

"Oh noes, The house's budget will federally fund clubbing of innocent baby seals and drown your grandmother in her own urine!"

"No it won't, I actually have the bill right here."

And then we could move on and wonder what the senate is doing that's taking so long. It's supposed to be iterative and transparent, and I think we should demand that it is.

Tea Partiers irritate me. Not because of what they're doing or saying or anything like that. But because they have a lot of energy and impetus and THERE WAS ALREADY A BERKELYING PARTY THAT REPRESENTED THEM. We even have people in elected positions!

Hi, I'm an official member of the Libertarian Party, and I support this message.

In my 9th grade history/civics class I made the suggestion that the budget should be decided by the taxpayers. When you pay your taxes you assign a percentage to go to certain agencies with a small amount going to a general fund. If you did not want to participate you could put it all in the general fund. My teacher looked like he was going to have a stroke when most of the other students agreed with me. He told us that the public was not smart enough to have that responsibility.

ReverendDexter wrote: Tea Partiers irritate me. Not because of what they're doing or saying or anything like that. But because they have a lot of energy and impetus and THERE WAS ALREADY A BERKELYING PARTY THAT REPRESENTED THEM. We even have people in elected positions! Hi, I'm an official member of the Libertarian Party, and I support this message.

What party is that, prytell? I can think of about five elected officials that embody the things which I value in the tea party. I'm pretty sure that doesn't count as having a party represent me, assuming I'm somewhat near the average tea party guy.

(By the way, the tea party isn't lime a "party of two" at the restaurant, nor a "democrat party". It was never intended to be a body of elected officials. The tea party never wanted a rep Bassett (T) to be someone's title. It was intended to be a tea party like Boston, throwing tea overboard. The first rallies actually had people bringing symbolic things to throw in the river (leaves and stuff, don't get all enviro on me), so I'm not looking to create a third party called the tea party, but to bring those principles to all of the elected officials. It's just an attempt at being heard rather than shrinking into the 'silent provider' category that so many of us fall into. Every other little niche has it's own little political interest group, heck, the underwater basketwearers association probably holds an annual rally to raise awareness for their lobbyists, while those of us who are sick and tired of taxes being so high don't do anything other than diligently go to work and raise our families. Maybe we write a letter now and again to a representative. The tea party was just a voice for us.)

ReverendDexter wrote: Hi, I'm an official member of the Libertarian Party, and I support this message.

You too? Awesome. My friends tell me I'm wasting my vote, but at least I'm voting my opinion.

I'm just sitting back watching the Republican Party eat itself.

slefain wrote:

ReverendDexter wrote: Hi, I'm an official member of the Libertarian Party, and I support this message.

You too? Awesome. I'm just sitting back watching the Republican Party eat itself.

I am one as well.

Well there you have it. Great graphic. Sure are yelling a lot and screwing a lot of stuff up for those crumbs.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Well there you have it. Great graphic. Sure are yelling a lot and screwing a lot of stuff up for those crumbs.

It's all the other party's fault.

It is seriously berkeleying me over. None of the contractors are hiring because they aren't sure of the funding. So much for a party that ran on jobs, jobs, jobs. Go berkeley yourself Boehner.

93EXCivic wrote: It is seriously berkeleying me over. None of the contractors are hiring because they aren't sure of the funding. So much for a party that ran on jobs, jobs, jobs. Go berkeley yourself Boehner.

Dude, there are hundreds at fault, certainly not Boehner all by himself.

I suspect as long as McDonald’s is still serving Big Macs, American Idol is still on TV, and porn is still on the internet, almost nobody in our country will care about a government shutdown.

For instance:

"Republicans want to shut down the government because they think there's nothing more important than keeping women from getting cancer screenings. This is indefensible and everyone should be outraged," Reid said on the Senate floor.

failboat wrote: FWIW. My wife is a contractor that works for the gov. She is also being allowed to use vacation time if the furlough happens only for a few days. In her case, It is being drawn from her accrued vacation time. I dont see how that is such a problem.

That is NOT a problem. What is a problem is that the worker in my example is getting paid 3 days to sit at home and pretend to be furloughed, because that is cheaper than actually furloughing him for 3 days. It's not coming out of his vacation. If it was, I wouldn't be complaining.

The bigger issue is that it should not cost more than 3 days' pay in administrative costs for each person to put that person on furlough for 3 days.