Skip to main content

Bass Harbor Head Lighthouse in Acadia National Park
(Photo by Justin Russell)
So what actually gets shut down if the government does shut down? At this point, nobody knows for sure. That's in part because the President has broad discretion about who keeps working and who doesn't. Another reason is that "essential employee" is not something that gets tattooed on the forehead of selected federal workers the instant they are hired. Department and division heads have some clout in this regard. In the last shutdown in 1995-96, the 21 days of Newt Gingrich and Gang, at least some supervisors made a strong effort to get as many of their subordinates deemed "essential" as possible. About 800,000 employees were initially sent home, with 284,000 eventually being furloughed for the entire three-week period. (They were paid retroactively.)

What has many federal workers upset this time around is that the adminstration hasn't been forthcoming with its plans for dealing with a shutdown that the Republicans claim they don't want while cheering its possibility. Not content to wait, the American Federation of Government Employees has put out a detailed shutdown guidance to its members just inc case.

Whatever happens, if Congress and the President can't come to agreement and a shutdown takes place, it's clear that planes will not crash into each other because air traffic controllers
have all been sent home, passengers will still be asked to take off their shoes going through airport security, wars and other military activity will continue without interruption, the borders will be patrolled, guards will be on duty at Danbury and other federal prisons, the Treasury
will keep running, the mail will be delivered, the Coast Guard will keep rescuing people and interdicting marijuana shipments, and, of course, Congress itself will stay in business.

Emily Badger has written about who may not be coming to work:

1. During the last shutdown, the cleanup of toxic waste was halted at 609 Superfund sites, with 2,400 workers sent home, according to a report compiled by the Congressional Research Service. Government protocol during a shutdown calls for continuing work that is essential to “protect life and property,” but this may not include threats from toxic waste.

2. That CRS report documented another impact for human health — during the last shutdown, the National Institutes of Health had to stop answering hotlines devoted to diseases. Agencies of the federal government such as the CDC operate a number of such hotlines, offering resources on everything from AIDS to immunization. …

4. Parks and federal tourist destinations closed during the last shutdown, and they undoubtedly would this time around as well. This would include national parks, battlefields (amid the sesquicentennial of the Civil War!), Smithsonian museums and trips up the Washington Monument and Statue of Liberty. The resulting loss in tourism would affect nongovernment entities as well, from restaurants to hotels to airlines. …

6. Benefits decisions for veterans could similarly be delayed. During the November 1995 shutdown, The Washington Post … reported on an injured veteran who had waited years for an appointment with the Board of Veterans Appeals, only to have it canceled in the shutdown. …

What else? For the first time, all Social Security checks for May will be delivered electronically, but the switchover from snail mail doesn't mean there will be no delays. It still takes employees to run the system. Last time around, the Social Security Administration initially furloughed 92 percent of its staff. Three days later, after realizing it didn't have enough people to answer phone calls from citizens needing a card for work or providing a change of address where the next check could be mailed, SSA recalled 49,000 of its 66,000 SSA employees.

New requests for retirement or disability claims are not likely to be processed. Nor visa and passport applications except in unusual circumstances such as a real (or fabricated) need to visit a dying relative. Delinquent child-support cases would be delayed. All but critical veterans services would gear down. Employees of federal contractors might be furloughed.

As would be expected, programs affecting low-income Americans would be hard hit. No skin off Republican noses, of course.

The negative economic impact could also be substantial. Take, for example, the National Park Service, which estimates it will pull in $173 million in fee revenue from visitors this year. Who feeds and provides beds, gasoline and souvenirs for those visitors? The local private sector to the tune of 270,000 jobs and $13.3 billion annually. Estimated loss to local economies in the 1995-96 shutdown: $14.2 million a day.

If the Republicans do force a shutdown, perhaps those workers and business owners will remember in November 2012.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Federal workers and their communities will suffer. (10+ / 0-)

    Also, many thousands of Federal workers will not get paid.  Their families and their communities will suffer as a result.  Unlike last time, I do not believe that Obama and the Democrats will pay back pay when it is all over.  This will have a huge impact on individuals and communities.

    •  Yet, for me & millions of voters, no direct impact (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a gilas girl, Abra Crabcakeya

      This, in a nutshell, is one huge critical problem.

      The sacrifices are NOT shared and the pain of the status quo is easily accommodated by many, if not most, Americans for whom the remnants of social responsibility  may be as unreliable as unaffordable.  

      When Social Security checks are not auto deposited, older voters will be angry, they'll be in the mood to punish at election time, but few will starve or freeze their bones for  weathering the DC drama du jour.

      Democrats need to step up and win, they can't rely on not losing. We can afford to pay our bills and we can afford to fund priorities so the Democrats should bring a decent roadmap to the people. Present alternatives every night on TV until one happens.

  •  I'm sorry (9+ / 0-)

    but only if the government shutdown affected the airing of Dancing with the Stars and Jersey Shore would the masses of lemmings in this country notice.  

    "Children lack morality, but they also lack fake morality." Mignon McLaughlin

    by djbender on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 07:46:48 AM PDT

  •  For Republicans it's never what's best for the (11+ / 0-)

    country. But, what's best for the Republicans. No matter how much damage is done.

  •  Rather curious, myself. (16+ / 0-)

    I'm scheduled to go out on another sub-sub-sub-sub-contract job at a fed spot next week. No word on whether or not the job will stop for shutdown.

    Hey, 'Pubs! Way to create jobs!

    Watch the new video. Then give me all your stuff.

    by Crashing Vor on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 07:48:33 AM PDT

  •  Passports will not be issued (4+ / 0-)

    Tax refunds will be delayed - I haven't gotten mine yet, so I'm screwed.  

    If the Republicans do force a shutdown, perhaps those workers and business owners will remember in November 2012.

    I have absolutely no faith that voters will not blame Democrats and Obama.  I've had many independents tell me they blame Democrats for wasting their majority.

    I support public employee's unions.

    by Tracker on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 07:48:48 AM PDT

    •  Hell, I've heard Democrats blame Dems (2+ / 0-)

      for wasting their majority.

      Like they can just ram through legislation when Republicans won't even allow it to get to the floor.

      -this space for rent-

      by EsnRedshirt on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 08:19:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  From 2008-2010 they COULD have rammed through (6+ / 0-)

        legislation, but chose not to.  They can't now.

        Read pp. 1-7 of Krugman's _The Great Unraveling_ (available from Google Books). NOW.

        by neroden on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 08:22:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  only for the 3-4 months that they had (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kck

          60 votes.

          Fry, don't be a hero! It's not covered by our health plan!

          by elfling on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 08:46:56 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  My mind is racing thinking of what could be done (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            elfling, Cody

            ...with 3-4 months of a Democratic WH, Senate, and House...with a super majority....

          •  we never had 60 votes (0+ / 0-)

            we had 60 in the D caucus, but we never had 60 votes we could count on without the kind of compromising that people here complain about all the time

            "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."
            I support Bob Massie for MA-Sen

            by TrueBlueMajority on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 09:44:50 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Compromising with the "Blue Dogs" (0+ / 0-)

              and compromising with the Republicans are/were two different things. All of us, I hope, were violently reacting against Dems compromising with Republicans. Any attempt to "compromise" with Republicans, of course, was stupid. Most of us understand having to compromise with other Dems; the problem came when the Dems in power chose not to give the stick to recalcitrant Blue Dogs, instead trying to give them more and more carrots while getting nothing in return. Then we started complaining because a "compromise", by definition, means getting something in return for concessions, and we weren't.

              •  compromising (0+ / 0-)

                with the "Blue Dogs" and compromising with the Republicons are/were two different things?  really?  how can you say that, when the Blue Dogs and the Republicons had the same goals--stopping health care reform, for example.

                and just what stick do you use to wave at or beat the Senate Blue Dogs that would bring them in line instead of just pushing them to switch parties?  if you know of some magic stick that will make them vote the right way, please share it with the rest of the class.

                i just hear a lot of complaining about the President not doing enough to suit some people, when they have no better political strategy to put in place, and under the circumstances (an opposition party singlemindedly dedicated to destroying him) I find it amazing that Obama accomplished anything at all.

                "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."
                I support Bob Massie for MA-Sen

                by TrueBlueMajority on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 01:32:23 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Oh, I don't know, stripping (0+ / 0-)

                  their districts/states of favors/money from the next appropriations bills, stripping them of appointments to committees or denying their requests for plush assignments--the usual way political leaders have done this kind of thing for hundreds of years. Or do you think that it's only been in the last 4+ years that party members have tried to rule from the minority, even from within the majority party? Why don't we ask the Republicans, since they have had near-total party discipline for far longer than that? How are they able to do it so effectively and we can't do it at all? Yes, they are authoritarians, but on our side even Joe Lieberman wants something to show his constituents that he got for them.
                  Has nothing to do with Obama, except for the fact that he gave the Blue Dogs cover repeatedly by expressing an interest in bipartisanship and listening to all sides of the discussion, etc.

                  •  you answered your own question (0+ / 0-)
                    they are authoritarians.

                    The D party has not governed by threat since Johnson, and he was only able to do it because he had huge majorities.

                    Joe Lieberman had us over a barrel by threatening to switch parties.  I wish we had called his bluff, but we didn't.

                    Has nothing to do with Obama,

                    Amen to that.

                    he gave the Blue Dogs cover repeatedly by expressing an interest in bipartisanship and listening to all sides of the discussion, etc.

                    sorry that acting like a grown up offends people.

                    and remember, expressing an interest in bipartisanship is a political strategy, not a legislative one.  You want to be able to say in a campaign that you tried to work with the other side, not prove them right when they try to blame the gridlock on you.

                    "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."
                    I support Bob Massie for MA-Sen

                    by TrueBlueMajority on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 03:35:52 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Acting like a grown up (0+ / 0-)

                      does not equal kowtowing to one's enemies. Especially when they are not in power, as the Rs and Blue Dogs were not for 2 whole years in any shape or form. Your last paragraph reveals the sad truth--Obama and the leading Dems were not interested in legislating, but instead in playing a political game (which they then lost in 2010, by the way, so who's the adult being responsible again?) How long were they going to try to work with the other side, anyway? I would think 6 months would have been plenty of time; a lot of bills can be voted on in that time frame, and there was every indication that the Rs would vote en bloc to block every single thing the Dems wanted. That should have been enough time for campaign purposes. After that, they should have done whatever they could to ram through the best legislation they had. Instead, they continued to water down their original bills, passing little that will have lasting effect. Best of both worlds--for the Rs, that is--the Rs got to stymie the Dems agenda, and then won the next election also!
                      P.S. The Rs will blame the gridlock and everything else under the sun that is bad on the Ds regardless of what we do, so we need to get over trying to win that PR battle. We should instead try to pass good legislation when we get the chance, and let the Rs storm and bluster while we fix the country despite them. We lost that chance in 2010; there's good reason to think that we lost because we didn't do just that.
                      P.P.S. If you don't think there are authoritarians in the Dem party also, you'd be surprised. We don't see them now, because no one is giving any strict orders. My point, though, is that there are plenty of levers of power that the Dem leadership had to pull and refused to even try, as far as we know. Joe Lieberman's threats were hollow--he would have been the most despised Republican in modern history, and there is no way on earth the R leaders would have given him anything. Why we didn't tell him to F off is beyond me; he has nowhere to go.

                      •  i agree with some of what you are saying (0+ / 0-)

                        we simply have a disagreement about what "kowtowing to one's enemies means."

                        they should have done whatever they could to ram through the best legislation they had

                        you can't "ram through legislation" when you need your opponents' votes to pass anything.  what part of that is hard to understand?

                        "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."
                        I support Bob Massie for MA-Sen

                        by TrueBlueMajority on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 08:33:22 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  What part of "Dems had 60 votes" (0+ / 0-)

                          (for awhile, anyway) do you not understand, to give snide for snide? And even after that, there were lots of possible moves to make that would have only required 50+1 votes. We didn't try any of them until (mostly) the lame duck session. And we actually got some stuff done, then, right? Why wasn't the previous 2 years like those 2 months?

                          •  Politics 101 (0+ / 0-)

                            Some of those 58 people with D after their name (and two Independents) did not vote with us.  They announced in advance of major bills that they would not vote with us.  So that meant we could not pass the legislation over the R filibuster without doing something to appeal to so-called moderate Rs, as well as appease our own conservadems.  That is the compromising that people here are angry about, but without which the bills could not pass.

                            That above paragraph is true for every major piece of legislation passed during the so-called "60 vote" period.

                            The previous 2 years were not like the last 2 months of the lame duck session (really, the last two weeks) because at the end of the lame duck session the Dems had the advantage of time.  Rs wanted to go home for the holiday break, but they could not go home early without surrendering their ability to filibuster.   So they were forced to compromise in a way that they had not faced in the previous two years.

                            Republicons had the choice of (1) working through Christmas, which they did not want to do, (2) going home early and abandoning the filibuster, thus giving the Dems free rein to pass whatever we wanted, or (3) finally agreeing to some common sense compromises.  They made choice (3) as the lesser of three evils.

                            And the reason we did not use the "nuclear option" of requiring only 50+1 votes was because we want to keep the filibuster option available for the Blue Team if the Rs take back the Senate, as they are poised to do in 2012 unless Ds keep the Wisconsin enthusiasm going.

                            I can't make it any plainer than that.

                            "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."
                            I support Bob Massie for MA-Sen

                            by TrueBlueMajority on Thu Apr 07, 2011 at 05:52:37 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You are simply bypassing my original (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            TrueBlueMajority

                            comment--there are methods of enforcing party loyalty that the Dem leadership did not employ! It may fit your preconceived notion of what "Politics 101" is, but for oh, the first 210+ years of our present governmental existence, it was indeed possible to get people who disagreed with you to vote for your bill, especially if they belonged to your own party. I can't make that any plainer, either. The tools were there, they've always been there, but the Dem leadership didn't use them.

                          •  for the first 222 years (0+ / 0-)

                            of our present governmental existence, no minority party abused the filibuster to this extent.

                            it was indeed possible to get people who disagreed with you to vote for your bill, especially if they belonged to your own party.

                            "belonged to your own party" is the key phrase there.  the blue dogs in the Senate who are in red states just barely qualify as Dems.  It is an empty threat to tell them that you will withhold chairmanships and funding from them, because it is too easy in the red/blue divide for them to just switch parties.  This sort of worked in our favor when the Rs tried to bring the hammer down on Specter.

                            I do not think you are living in the real world.  You are imagining that party politics are what they were under Johnson.  They are not.

                            "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."
                            I support Bob Massie for MA-Sen

                            by TrueBlueMajority on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 07:16:56 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

  •  My son is headed to Washington... (13+ / 0-)

    ...on a trip to play in his school band at various museums and public venues.  My guess is that he and his bandmates will be caught in the cross-fire and much of their itinerary canceled.  Sad way to learn about how the government works (or doesn't)

  •  And...Atlas shrugged... (3+ / 0-)
  •  OT (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    arizonablue, gchaucer2, Mary Mike, vicki

    But AP says Kloppenburg ahead by 140, with three precincts out.   Prosser's folks apparently expect the ultimate margin to be around 30.

    And on topic, I'm a lawyer doing the work of a federal public defender, and nobody seems to know how a shutdown will affect the courts or the criminal justice system.  I don't recall a big effect in 1995, but my memory is not all that good these days.

  •  Most galling (10+ / 0-)

    per Thinkprogress:  US Troops will Fight Without Pay.

       U.S. military troops at war in Iraq and Afghanistan would receive one-week’s pay instead of two in their next paycheck if the government shuts down this weekend due to the federal budget impasse, according to a senior defense official.

        The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss personnel issues, said the military can’t be paid during a funding lapse until a new appropriations bill or continuing resolution is passed by Congress.

        If the funding bill expires on April 8, it will be in the middle of the military’s two-week pay period, so Pentagon would send out paychecks for just the first week of the pay period, said the official.

    After that one week paycheck -- nada.

    And in addition, from Yglesias in the update of the same article:

    Matt Yglesias writes, "Under federal law, many classes of federal employees keep needing to work if the government shuts down. FBI agents serving under cover won’t suddenly drop out, and federal prisons will keep operating. But the people who do these jobs won’t get paid."

    " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

    by gchaucer2 on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 07:51:34 AM PDT

    •  Interest-free loan to the government (11+ / 0-)

      I was explaining to a conservative friend that people deferring pay during this period were in fact extending an interest-free loan to the government and if he thought it was such a good idea, why didn't he start the ball rolling with a couple of grand?

      He scoffed.

      I support public employee's unions.

      by Tracker on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 07:54:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  god, this job is so horrible... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gchaucer2, A Runner

      filling out fucking form then calling to harass administrators to get them to give me statistical information...

      oh dear god...I am not even going to make it through my first day.

    •  Military Pay Is By Direct Deposit (0+ / 0-)

      So why wouldn't they get paid?  I could understand any changes wouldn't go through, but why wouldn't they get their regular pay?

      •  Not sure why (0+ / 0-)

        direct deposit couldn't continue, but I read three separate sources which indicated the same.

        " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

        by gchaucer2 on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 08:13:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Because there is no money in the bank/no (4+ / 0-)

        permission to write checks.  The congress has not appropriated funds for this fiscal year.  If the funds have not been committed prior to the shutdown, there is no legal way to disburse the funds.  Executive branch departments/agencies have no money unless congress both authorizes and appropriates funds for them.  There are funds that are appropriated years in advance (shipbuilding funds, for example) so those could keep being spent but operating costs (payroll, rent, utilities) are appropriated annually and there has been no appropriation for this year.  The continuing resolutions have only given permission to write checks through the 8th on this year's money.

        appropriation -- a law that moves money from the general treasury into a specific department or agency's account for disbursal

        authorization -- a law that allows the deparment/agency to spend the money as described in the bill.  

        The National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 has been passed and signed, but the monies have not been appropriated and therefore cannot be spent.  Hence no pay for anyone, but Military must still report for duty.

        •  That Was A Rather Stupid Question, 'Eh? (0+ / 0-)

          Thanks for the obvious explanation!

          •  Actually, I didn't think so ... I don't think (0+ / 0-)

            that "how a bill becomes a law" clarifies the distinction between appropriations and authorizations.  How is it that some checks will continue to be written and others can't be?  That's a whole 'nother pedantic lecture.

            I apologize if I came across as condescending, I think this stuff is more confusing than it needs to be, and I like explaining what I know about it.  But I only know because I've been buried in the esoterica concerning federal spending for years ... so you can pity me now.

    •  Interesting and awful.... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      drewfromct

      but surely they could simply stop working when they stopped being paid?.... there are laws about SLAVERY.

      ...probably not in the military, though.  :-P  Military contracts seem to include "You will work whether or not we are paying you" sort of clauses.

      Read pp. 1-7 of Krugman's _The Great Unraveling_ (available from Google Books). NOW.

      by neroden on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 08:23:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The really stupid thing about not announcing what (16+ / 0-)

    will be shut down, aside from the inconvenience to agencies trying to plan ahead, is that it would be a great opportunity to show government activity in a positive light.  Telling people for weeks that they're going to lose access to parks, that they won't be able to get passports processed, that there won't be staffing to get questions answered at Social Security and Veterans Affairs, that the Smithsonian will be closed... it would be a great way to remind people of all the good stuff that the government does for them.  And it would be a chance to remind them of the kind of stuff the fucking repubs would like to do away with permanently - "You didn't like losing it for two weeks, but they want to get rid of it entirely!"

    It's hard to believe what a louse job this administration does on communication, considering how great they were at getting the messages out during the campaign.

    They only call it Class War when we fight back.

    by lineatus on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 07:51:37 AM PDT

  •  Tax Season (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tracker, Catte Nappe, Ms Citizen

    How will this affect the IRS and tax refund checks? Won't those be delayed as well?

    “Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.” Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

    by Josiology on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 07:53:22 AM PDT

  •  Perhaps. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    A Runner, Meteor Blades, RainyDay

    " ... perhaps those workers and business owners will remember in November 2012."

    But probably not.  Republicans are smart enough to do the dirty work in the months immediately following an election.  By this time next year it will be all bread and circuses ... which is what the electorate will remember.

    Same thing will happen in Florida.  All the hell being unleashed by the governor and legislature will be forgotten by November 2012.

    Which side are you on?

    by ThirstyGator on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 07:53:54 AM PDT

  •  Simple solution (5+ / 0-)

    find out how many gov't. employees are Republicans, and then send them home with a card saying "You asked for it".

    Al Qeada is a faith-based initiative.

    by drewfromct on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 07:54:00 AM PDT

    •  Hatch Act violation (0+ / 0-)

      In principle, civil service employees are not screened by political affiliation.  In practice, a lot of senior civil service manager have evolved into a conservative mindset and some are more or less openly Republican.  So it's illegal first and probably would result in a lot more false claims of "essential" employees.

      50 states, 210 media market, 435 Congressional Districts, 3080 counties, 192,480 precincts

      by TarheelDem on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 09:38:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  In practice (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        QuestionAuthority
        In principle, civil service employees are not screened by political affiliation
        Reagan, and Bush I and Bush II loaded the gov't. with wingnuts. It's long past time to clean house. Legality never stops the Rethugs from doing whatever they like to advance their agenda, and it's just plain stupid to play by rules that the other side has long since abandoned.

        Al Qeada is a faith-based initiative.

        by drewfromct on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 10:37:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I should add that (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MrJersey

          all Obama needs to do is take a page from the Rethug playbook: designate a fall guy to give the orders to fire every Rethug in the gov't. (And people who claim to want "Smaller Government" should have no complaint whatsoever about being held to their stated principles and being first in line for the cuts), then deny knowledge of the plot, allow the fall guy to be convicted of violating the Hatch Act, and then pardon the fall guy. After all, what worked for Ford and Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Weinberger, and Bush II and Scooter Libby should work just fine for Obama. It's a tried-and-true end run around the law, and the Rethugs who perfected this formula can't say Jack Shit about having their own methods turned against them.

          If they truly desire "Small Government", then no decent Republican (Now there's an oxymoron for you!) has any business taking a paycheck from it. Let them all go sell their talents to the highest bidder in their precious "free" market and see how long it takes them to starve. And Good Riddance.

          Al Qeada is a faith-based initiative.

          by drewfromct on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 11:20:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Small government (0+ / 0-)

            Bwahahahahahaha!

            They want patronage government of a kind that hasn't been seen for a hundred years.

            Small government enriches them now because their patrons don't want to be taxed and regulated.

            And the Repugs who work for the government or government contractors thinks its their due because they've "already paid taxes".  Even the wingnuts who work for contractors supporting the IT operations of the EPA, OSHA, SEC, and DOL.

            50 states, 210 media market, 435 Congressional Districts, 3080 counties, 192,480 precincts

            by TarheelDem on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 12:45:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  When I wrote a diary many moons back about (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    neroden, drewfromct, elfling, ohmyheck

    the prospect of a Government shut down (someone said they would never do that), I pointed out the big difference between the circumstances under the Clinton administration and as of now.

    Large government surpluses in all budgets, with expenditure vired between accounts.

    Those surpluses have been laid waste across the land of Iraq.

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    The US will have real problems with a shut down now.

  •  our lives (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jct, neroden, QuestionAuthority

    We go to standby and survive mode.

    Protest at the capitol monday.

    •  So do contractors (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      newleaves

      No work = no pay. Many of us are not "essential" employees. We don't get "back pay" for being off, either. We get to choke on it and hope it doesn't last too long.

      "Ridicule may lawfully be employed where reason has no hope of success." Ed Brayton "Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott -7.75/-6.05

      by QuestionAuthority on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 10:59:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Unfortunately, most voters do not pay that much (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    A Runner, neroden, Tracker, Jon Says

    attention to how these things come about. They will only remember that it was a great inconvenience and it happened on Obama's watch. The MSM will re-enforce that meme ad nauseum.

  •  Air traffic SHOULD stop (9+ / 0-)

    Remind these bastards of the value of government. Want to shut down government? Think government is bad? Okay, then. Let's show you what commerce would look like without government,

    •  Either close the FAA or cut it 50% (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      beauchapeau

      Spread the pain through the whole federal government.  Cut the National Parks 75% and only send out Social Security checks to names beginning with A through M.
      Cut Congress salaries 50%. Cut the Pentagon, sparing the ammunition and salary for troops actively at war. etc.

      Conservation is green energy

      by peggy on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 09:00:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  this IS the Republican jobs plan (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SBParrothead

    fuck EVERYONE!

    It's not a fake orgasm; it's a real yawn.

    by sayitaintso on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 08:02:18 AM PDT

  •  Will Money Continue to Flow (12+ / 0-)

    From corporate lobbyists to members of Congress during a shutdown?

    Find me fast on Daily Kos by following me.

    by bink on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 08:05:05 AM PDT

  •  If I were writing this (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    neroden, peggy

    If I were writing this from a government computer, I could say that Social Security HQ expects pretty much everybody to stay home next week, but the bare minimum needed for the computers to keep running.  No decisions on disability cases, no disability appeals , no processing of W3s, no work history maintenance or inquiries processed.  

    Up in the air whether the checks will go out; it's the top priority, but it depends on how much contingency money is left in various accounts.  There is some contractor money already pre-funded, so many functions will go on using a skeleton crew of contractors.

  •  The radical agenda (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Meteor Blades, neroden, ohmyheck, elfling

    If there is a shutdown, if the "moderate" Rs lose out to the baggers in their caucus, I expect two factors to make this episode more complicated than 1995-6.

    For one thing, I expect the other side to hold out longer.  Their radicals seem both more radical and more confident of victory than last time.  Since this is a game of chicken, and the side that blinks first loses, once their side commits to playing this game, I expect them to be much more stubborn and persistent in their determination to not blink first.  One particular aspect of their radicalness this time is a greater hostility to govt workers.  I wouldn't be too sure that, even if they do relent and allow these workers to come back to work, that they will fund any sort of pay for time spent not working because of the shutdown.  

    The other complicating factor is that the other side has, as one of their radical bits of ideology, a belief that "the power of the purse" means that the administration cannot legally do any sort of workarounds to let unfunded govt functions continue.  Unless there is specific statutory authority for the president to do just that, move resources around to keep a particular govt function operating, I expect them to bring lawsuits challenging any such adminstration actions, at least where such actions aren't obvious third rails (keeping SocSec payments going, for example).  They've been packing the federal bench with Federalist Society stooges for a generation, time to collect on that investment.  

    We should have destroyed the presidency before Obama took office. Too late now.

    by gtomkins on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 08:06:51 AM PDT

    •  Heh heh heh. I bet the judiciary does not have (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gtomkins, whl

      a specific carve out to guarantee its funding -- could somebody check?

      If the courts close, I don't think there's gonna be any court challenges of anything the President does.

      Read pp. 1-7 of Krugman's _The Great Unraveling_ (available from Google Books). NOW.

      by neroden on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 08:26:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Actually, a "shutdown" creates total Presidential (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gtomkins, ohmyheck, drewfromct, elfling, peggy

        power.  Though I doubt Obama has the guts to use it.  He could declare that the Bureau of Engraving and Printing is an essential service, and start paying for everything except the courts with newly printed Federal Reserve notes.  With the courts shut, who could challenge him?

        Tea partiers of course never think about such things, but a "government shutdown" ends up giving even more power to the executive.

        Read pp. 1-7 of Krugman's _The Great Unraveling_ (available from Google Books). NOW.

        by neroden on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 08:29:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  What's the extent? (0+ / 0-)

          Is there a statute that gives the president such blanket authority?  Or is shutdown procedure, such as distinctions between essential and non-essential workers, just a matter of policy directives issued by this or past administrations?  Some of both?

          My point is that last time, in 1995-6, the other side backed down in defeat.  They didn't challenge the administration's shutdown procedures, and after it was all over, they were eager to pay even federal workers who hadn't worked during the shutdown.  

          I'm not sure you can extrapolate from their behavior last time, what they'll do this time.  Adminstration shutdown procedures shouldn't be assumed to be unchallengable just because they weren't challenged last time.  I'm going to be worried until I see it in cold, hard statutory language, and even then I'm going to suspect that their Federalist Society plants will find a way to overturn the statutes.

          We should have destroyed the presidency before Obama took office. Too late now.

          by gtomkins on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 08:37:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Professional courtesy (0+ / 0-)

        Even if there isn't specific statutory authority for them to continue operating, the courts are probably one of those third rails that the Rs would not litigate over, and I can't see the Ds having the cojones and/or lack of scruples to launch copycat litigation to keep them shut down.

        We should have destroyed the presidency before Obama took office. Too late now.

        by gtomkins on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 08:29:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  If Obama & Company were not such sissies (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RainyDay, peggy, Catte Nappe

        the first cuts would be ALL congressional staffers--across the board. Clear the buildings, send the cops home, shut off the heat, lights and water. Close all the congressional offices across the nation, every one of them cleaned out, shut off the utilities, then chain and lock the doors.

        Second, all the federal courts--everybody. Clear the buildings. Alito can stand outside his marble mausoleum and yell "not true" until he is hoarse. Thomas can sit on the steps and thumb through his porn magazines while Ginny rallies teabaggers in the portico. Scalia can pray the Rosary in hopes that the Flying Spaghetti Monster will smite the females from His Court as a partial return to original intent. Roberts can throw spit balls torn from copies of the Constitution.

        Third, stop every federal contractor--wheresoever found. End all payments of any kind.

        Fourth, cut off payment to all the states, counties, and cities--every known program shuts down. No money to any local functions.

        Fifth, furlough all the civilian employees at every military installation, close the bases, and terminate all services.

        Then, President Obama should (must) invoke Article II, Section 3, of the Constitution:

        He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

        He should "convene both Houses" in the Washington DC Armory, "recommend to their Consideration" his budget, and keep them there until they pass one.

        After all, folks, it's the law.

        We're all just working for Pharoah.

        by whl on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 09:00:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  FYI - the executive branch (0+ / 0-)

          doesn't get any input into the legislative nor judicial branch's budgets.  They are incorporated 'as-is' into the Federal budget but cannot be touched by OMB as they pass through for publishing.  

          •  You're wrong. There are no Federal budget items (0+ / 0-)

            when the shutdown happens.

            Politico has a simple explanation.

            If the government shuts down, thousands of government employees would be furloughed without pay, federal agencies and parks would shutter, and congressional staffer paychecks would stop.

            But the elected members of Congress? Their $174,000 a year pay checks would keep coming.

            Under U.S. law, elected members of Congress — as well as the president and uniformed military personnel — are exempt from furlough, but most congressional employees are not.

            Members of Congress can require “essential” employees to report to work without immediate pay, something that could anger staffers who have no real choice in the matter.


            [snip]
            In case of a shutdown, Congress would still have to work to pass a continuing resolution that would refund and reopen federal building doors.

            Furthermore, Pres. Obama can veto that resolution and just put the entire congress out of business----Boehner answering his own phone!!! What a joke. Probably can't even figure out how to run it.

            I have no interest in showing you how the White House can put the Supreme Court out of action, but there is no Federal budget without a, you know, actual budget.

            We're all just working for Pharoah.

            by whl on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 01:59:38 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  you misunderstood the point I was making (0+ / 0-)

              or perhaps I was unclear.  During the budget process, before the President submits his budget to congress there is a long budget development process in the executive branch where each agency/department negotiates its budget with OMB.  However, the Judicial and Legislative budgets are given to OMB and included in the "President's Budget" without any opportunity for input by the President or OMB.

              Contractors whose contracts have already been funded not only can, but are contractually obligated to continue to work.  So while shutting out all contractors may make some political point you want to make, it would not be legal.  The continuing resolutions did appropriate funds and those funds were committed.  Work purchased by those committed funds must be performed.

              Your comment also seems to ignore the distinction between mandatory and discretionary government spending.  Mandatory spending is that which covers what are called "entitlement" programs as well as certain defense spending and only require an authorization bill each year for continued execution.  Discretionary spending requires both authorization and appropriation bills.  So your recommendation that everything be shut down would have to exclude mandatory programs.  Then you have the people needed to execute the mandatory programs, who may or may not be paid for with mandatory funds (likely not) who may be declared essential in order for the execution of the mandatory program to continue as required by law.   So there actually are Federally funded programs even without federal appropriations bills.

              I have no problem with your suggestion that both houses be convened to pass a budget, but since they are both in session, I don't understand your point.

              And while the uniformed military is required to report to work, they will not be paid until after the govt is reopened, unless a 'special bill' is passed, while Congress members, judges and the pres still get paid.

              I think though, that I must have missed the point of your first comment, and provided facts that weren't relevant to it.  Either that or you are just irritated.

              •  You don't know what you are talking about. (0+ / 0-)

                You didn't read the article cited. You didn't even read my quotation from it . . . must be too long, hunh?

                Under U.S. law, elected members of Congress — as well as the president and uniformed military personnel — are exempt from furlough, but most congressional employees are not.

                Absolutely contrary to what you've written, twice, the congress and the military will be paid----as well as the President. The judges will not. Pres. Obama can shut all of them down except GIs, members of congress, and himself. He probably won't do that. I'm suggesting that he should do it. (There are some congressional staffers that are paid, too, by statute: some guards, sergeant-at-arms, medical personnel, odds & ends of certain jobs.)

                There would not be a Federal budget. There would have to be a continuing resolution to fund anything not in the statute.

                It doesn't matter that the congressional operations budget and the judiciary budget are inserted verbatim to the Federal budget. There would not be a Federal budget; it won't exist; there are no appropriations.

                The contractors can and probably will be shutdown. All the Federal contracts I've ever seen (a few hundred) contain a provision for budget failure. And, yes, if the money for a contract is already allocated the work will go on and be paid for.

                There are several sources for this stuff besides the one in Politico. It's all laid out for you. Your opinions are not accurate.

                And, yeah, I'm irritated. My comments were a sort of wish that the Obama admin. would toughen up and make the government shutdown hurt the people causing it. Your comment about where the congressional & judiciary budgets come from and go to is irrelevant to my comments. There would be no federal budget for those 2 items to be within, etc . . . . . so they won't get paid . . . .

                We're all just working for Pharoah.

                by whl on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 09:53:57 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  That's a particularly galling (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gtomkins, elfling
      The other complicating factor is that the other side has, as one of their radical bits of ideology, a belief that "the power of the purse" means that the administration cannot legally do any sort of workarounds to let unfunded govt functions continue.
      bit of hypocrisy from the folks who gave us Iran-Contra. For those of you too young to remember, Iran-Contra was when Reagan allowed his CIA to sell weapons to Iranian terrorists in order to fund American-backed terrorists in Nicaragua, after Congress had used the power of the purse to de-fund them.

      Al Qeada is a faith-based initiative.

      by drewfromct on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 08:46:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  DC services (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jct, neroden, drewfromct, peggy, Catte Nappe

    Because the District of Columbia's budget is tied up in all of this, local services funded by DC tax payer money but controlled by Congress will be shut down.  Those could include: trash services, homeless services, some home medical services, potentially police and fire.   TBD.com

  •  The Tea Party Government Shutdown of 2011 (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    neroden, ohmyheck

    This will be entirely a Tea Party production.
    An expression of how much they hate government.

    If you can't write a budget that can pass the Senate and get a White House signature, then you need to compromise, if you won't, the blame for a shutdown lands on your doorstep.

    Our government operated just fine when Nancy ran the House.

  •  There's already a de facto shutdown (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    neroden, elfling, Catte Nappe

    and has been for weeks.  My spouse visited the National Science Foundation in February, and reported that the employees there were not doing the work they were hired to do, but forming instead contingency plans, based on the supposition that whatever they started would very likely be either interrupted or canceled.

    So in addition to the boogeyman deficit that these clowns have created and perpetuated to scare the public into submission to autocracy, there are billions and billions of lost opportunity costs.

  •  So who gets blamed for a gvmt shutdown? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    neroden, ohmyheck, drewfromct

    This one SHOULD be easy.

    The gop hate gvmt and routinely try to eliminate its effectiveness. Their bagger overlords despise gvmt.

    We Dems are big gvmt lovers who want gvmt to work for everyone.

    So who should be blamed? Its really easy.

    But the media...

    No home. No job. No peace. No rest.

    by A Runner on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 08:19:39 AM PDT

  •  The military SHOULD be considered nonessential. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    drewfromct, peggy

    It hasn't defended us from foreign invasion since, oh, the 1940s.  We can do without it for a few weeks.

    It just shows how twisted our elite masters are that they are willing to cut the DISEASE HOTLINE and not the pointless wars.

    Read pp. 1-7 of Krugman's _The Great Unraveling_ (available from Google Books). NOW.

    by neroden on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 08:21:31 AM PDT

  •  All I know is, in the WMTL household (0+ / 0-)

    we are a little nervous about a shutdown and potential loss of Mrs. WMTL's paycheck for a little while...

    What matters is...how well we have loved, and what small part we have played in making the lives of other people better.

    by wmtriallawyer on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 08:28:28 AM PDT

  •  Do we have a list of what's legally protected? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    drewfromct, peggy

    As in, what has appropriations which are separate from the budget?

    I really would be amused to just watch the President announce that Congress is nonessential and has been shut down -- it would kind of be the logical conclusion of Congress's repeated granting of power to the President -- but I'm fairly certain they kept themselves off-budget.

    Read pp. 1-7 of Krugman's _The Great Unraveling_ (available from Google Books). NOW.

    by neroden on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 08:32:08 AM PDT

  •  Why exactly is air travel "essential"? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    peggy, Meteor Blades, MrJersey

    It's not even in the Constitution.

    Fry, don't be a hero! It's not covered by our health plan!

    by elfling on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 08:45:14 AM PDT

    •  Shut Down Air Traffic Control in Red States (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      peggy

      Let the SOB's ride the Greyhound.

    •  Was the "original intent" of the Founding Fathers (0+ / 0-)

      that the Air Traffic Control system an essential function.  Somehow, I think that Justices Scalia and Thomas could come up with an argument that James Madison thought that ATC was was essential to the new Republic in 1789.  The fact that it was fantasy, just like most of their beliefs is completely irrelevant.

      And it feels like I'm livin'in the wasteland of the free ~ Iris DeMent, 1996

      by MrJersey on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 12:28:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Q: While gov't is shut down..... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    peggy, Catte Nappe

    and I would like only sincere rather than joke/snark answers......

    If the  government is shut down, does that leave open the opportunity to do things like illegal dumping or some such 'convenience' when nobody is watching? Are there any investigative journalists working on the question of who could take advantage of a government shut down?

    For example, tracking for-profit companies that offer 'loans' in anticipation of tax returns, etc.

    •  Piracy on the high seas (cf. Somalia) (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Catte Nappe

      Is protection from piracy an essential service? It isn't to me.
      Maybe it is essential to some international corporations, but they could just hire one of the many mercenary outfits and get together to buy/rent a destroyer.

      Conservation is green energy

      by peggy on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 09:14:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks. (0+ / 0-)

    Though I remember there was one under Clinton, I don't remember many of the details.

    Thanks for putting this together.

    Wonder how many Americans have any idea what's most likely coming?

    Centrist incrementalism in D.C. + Progressive incrementalism in activism = GLOBAL PLUTOCRACY

    by Words In Action on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 08:58:45 AM PDT

  •  Painless (for Corporate America) Shutdowns (0+ / 0-)

    Painless filibusters.  

    In California it takes a 2/3 vote to do anything Democrats want to do but a simple majority to do what Republicans want.

    Seems like the game is rigged.

    Kabuki Shutdown.  A real shutdown would mean troops in the field don't get paid and ammunition doesn't get delivered.  Then the idiots who run this country would have to take their shutdowns real.  

    They may also have to take a harder look before they rush us off to the next war.

    This aggression will not stand, man.

    by kaleidescope on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 09:04:28 AM PDT

    •  the troops won't get paid, and ammo may or (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      peggy

      may not get delivered on schedule, but they will be expected to fight/report for duty anyway.  The tea partiers don't care ... they aren't in the field.  Bush tried to cut combat pay during a war.  They don't care.

      If there is a shutdown, I hope everyone affected by it shows up at their congressperson's office to "volunteer" to "help" during the crisis.  Since clearly they don't have enough people to do their jobs in a timely fashion.  Or maybe just to sit-in the lobby until they can go back to work.  Or maybe just march outside holding up signs... could this possibly be the tipping point?

  •  What gets shut down? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    peggy, schnecke21

    My brother-in-law works for the Census Bureau full-time. My precious niece, age 7, has been in and out of the hospital for the past month, having contracted Rheumatic Fever due to a case of strep throat that she has been fighting for a while.

    After seemingly getting things in the right direction in the past week, she has started exhibiting symptoms again, believed to be because of interactions with meds she was previously taking.

    So, on top of fully expecting that Friday will be his last day of gainful income for the foreseeable future, they are frantically trying to get my niece covered under my sister-in-law's insurance (and thank God she has it). All this while continuing to run relays to various doctors.

    Put yourself in this situation, think about it for a few minutes.

    THAT's what gets shut down....

    Make a difference today. Who better than you?

    by sidinny on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 09:27:31 AM PDT

    •  The Tea Baggers would say that your (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sidinny

      niece should have just made a more informed choice in the diseases that she chose to contract.  That snark said, the short term effect of a shut down could produce financial hardship for your niece's family, however, a capitulation by Democrats to TeaBagger demands could result in thousands, perhaps, millions of children just like your neice being denied treatment due to a dismantling of the health care system.  

      And it feels like I'm livin'in the wasteland of the free ~ Iris DeMent, 1996

      by MrJersey on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 12:36:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Trust me... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MrJersey

        ... I'm under no delusions as to who is responsible for this and why. I still strongly support the president but continue to be frustrated that he doesn't seem to realize that this is a direct result of continuing to try to find middle ground with hostage-takers.

        It's even more frustrating when watching their supporters dangle their teabags in triumph, even as their masters are leading them (and the rest of us) to slaughter.

        Make a difference today. Who better than you?

        by sidinny on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 12:50:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  the eternal dilemma when dealing with radicals (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Meteor Blades, peggy, MrJersey

    is how much harm can we and are we willing to bear in order to demonstrate the need for the services?

    The Tea Baggers have a much looser calculus of harm than the Democratic Party has.

    What is interesting to note is that the folks who appear to be those most likely to suffer directly the consequences of harm in a shutdown are those folks the Tea Party types and the GOP have already amply demonstrated they believe, if not deserve harm, then should bear the burden of it.

    Every one of the shutdowns listed or discussed in this thread, serve to reinforce the [false] right wing meme that government only serves "special interests".  As someone who actually lives inside the Beltway but not inside the District the local angle of the story is all about the regular folks who aren't going to get paid.  What I'm reminded of is that this particular local resonance also has resonance on the other side, but in precisely the other direction, plenty of people who vote or serve Tea Party interests would like nothing better than to have everyone who works for the government not get paid.

    Using that as an argument for why the government shouldn't be shut down isn't going to work beyond reinforcing the already existing lines of division on the issue.

    The strategist part of my brain thinks, the only way to make the point that government IS valuable is to bear the loss of some collective vital service, not to force certain groups to overwhelming bear the brunt of the shut down.  But the humanistic part of my heart doesn't want to have to see that happen.

    Should we go without prison guards?  Would anyone really notice if the FBI shut down?  What if all the soldiers up and went home if they didn't get paid (used to happen in the 18th and 19th century, but of course, it is a very long a dangerous walk home from Afghanistan or Iraq  for our folks in uniform today.  Its not like ditching the Kaiser, crawling out of the trenches and working your back across Northern France into Germany).  Which service, precisely, IS a service that would rip to shreds the fallacious Tea Party argument that government is nothing but a burden we can no longer shoulder?

    Real people do bear the burdens now, but the shock and burden is distributed in such a way that it simply reinforces the already existing political battle lines.    

    Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

    by a gilas girl on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 09:48:49 AM PDT

  •  they can stop interdicting the (0+ / 0-)

    marijuana.

    I, for one, will not complain.

    witness the GOPranos...rethugs....Paul Wolfowitz: "If they fuck with me or Shaha, I have enough on them to fuck them too."

    by change the Be on Wed Apr 06, 2011 at 05:24:21 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site