Government Shutdown

[McNutty]

Originally Posted by Brian

Congressmen regularly claim that they are "serving" the people, and that's just not true.

You are the biggest baby that ever lived.

[ryevermouthbitters]

Originally Posted by hatesfreedom

You could try bringing the military back to peace time levels...

Don't need to. And, frankly, it wouldn't be desirable even a little bit. The military could and should shrink some, even beyond the amount is has, but to nowhere near the levels that you think of as "peacetime."

Oh, but did I mention that it has shrunk? With Bush ending the Iraq war and Obama drawing down the Afghanistan war, the defense budget has actually declined for the past two years. It's declined even further because of sequestration.

Sequestration, by the way, was what came from the last debate over the debt ceiling. Doubtless one of the reasons the current tea-party Republicans feel so emboldened this time is that the last showdown over the ceiling was a principled, bold, correct insurgency which led to overwhelmingly positive results. Not only has defense spending come down, overall government spending has come down for two years in a row.

If the Republicans were smart, they'd be having this same showdown but instead of having it over something which they (probably correctly) believe will turn people against Democrats for a generation, they'd have it to extend the benefits of sequestration to reachieve the balanced budget that a Republican Congress and a Democratic administration achieved in the 90's. The steps are small (i.e. the budget could increase at near-inflation rates and taxes wouldn't have to change a bit) and could lead to circumstances which would allow for broader entitlement reform.

But they're not smart, they're stupid. So they're trying to delay all the negative effects of the heath care law until after the midterm elections.

Obama is not nearly as smart as I thought he was; in fact he's kind of dumb. But he's really lucky in having even stupider enemies.

[Chacoguy]

Originally Posted by Brian

What the hell is the TSP?

TSP

If you displayed a shred of intellectual honesty, I wouldn't be reduced to mocking you like this.

[Brian]

Originally Posted by Chacoguy

TSP

If you displayed a shred of intellectual honesty, I wouldn't be reduced to mocking you like this.

lmgtfy is trolling on any message board I've even seen.

Who are you friends with, to get away with it?

[Jaglavak]

Originally Posted by Chocodile

And why does any business public or private continue with that stupid "use it or lose it" policy?

Mostly they don't. A competent upper management actually reads those monthly reports and keeps track of what's getting done, and departmental backlogs. They establish time reporting systems. They review industry standard staffing levels and ply their spies amongst the competition. They hire overpaid MBAs to do studies with which to recommend headcount. They require bottom up requests for budget and then do top down reviews of the supporting documentation. It's a real pain in the ass. The use it or lose it thing does happen but not very often in private industry.

[loshan]

Department of the Interior, you ask? They may not be preventing an imminent terrorist attack, but they are necessary and missed.

My land backs up to a National Forest. I can tell you from direct observation that there are multiple people taking huge advantage of public lands in the last two days.

Illegal firewood/lumber cutting, illegal grazing, campfires where there should be none. I gave a pic of the cattle (w/brand) to the Border Patrol agent (who isn't being paid ATM) that patrols this dirt road into Canada. He said they can't do anything about it at the moment, not only are they under immense strain from the shutdown, but they really aren't set up to handle livestock issues. He said to email the FS the pic so that it can handle it when the gov't reopens and he will hand off the photo at that time also.

They are trying to keep an eye on illegal burning and the wood situation. Problem with the wood? No FS to issue and/or verify permits and tell if those people cutting down "your" forest are doing so legally.

[Chacoguy]

Originally Posted by Brian

lmgtfy is trolling on any message board I've even seen.

Who are you friends with, to get away with it?

My answer here.

[Tuckerfan]

Originally Posted by Chocodile

I'm not a Tea Partier or even a registered Republican, but why do we need a national zoo? It was a great thing in 1889 when few regions had their own zoo, but we've moved past that.

It gives you a centralized location for experts and regional zoos to coordinate their work. A National Zoo carries the weight of the whole of the nation behind it, while a regional zoo, no matter how good, isn't going to have that level of prestige. This comes in handy when you're trying to negotiate with another country to get animals (or semen) for breeding programs to protect endangered species.

Originally Posted by Jaglavak

Mostly they don't. A competent upper management actually reads those monthly reports and keeps track of what's getting done, and departmental backlogs. They establish time reporting systems. They review industry standard staffing levels and ply their spies amongst the competition. They hire overpaid MBAs to do studies with which to recommend headcount. They require bottom up requests for budget and then do top down reviews of the supporting documentation. It's a real pain in the ass. The use it or lose it thing does happen but not very often in private industry.

I've worked for several Fortune 500 companies over the years, and all of them had the "use it or lose it" attitude. (Of course, they're finances aren't exactly in the best of shape these days.)

[ryevermouthbitters]

Originally Posted by Chocodile

I'm not a Tea Partier or even a registered Republican, but why do we need a national zoo? It was a great thing in 1889 when few regions had their own zoo, but we've moved past that.

We don't. And we didn't need it back then, when zoos were barbaric. And in particular, we shouldn't be sending millions of dollars to our economic adversary to rent animals.

That said, the total government allocation to the Smithsonian generally is tiny, and the part that goes to the zoo is smaller still -- small enough that if you mentally think about it as a recompense for the property taxes the government doesn't pay to the city of D.C., the amount pretty much goes away.

What I don't understand is why the Zoo and the rest of the Smithsonian are covered by the shutdown. Yes, something like 3/4 of their budget comes from the government. But it's nominally independent and the government money should come in chunks. They're not a department like Interior or Defense, they're a chartered corporation whose money and ultimate leadership happens to come from the government.

[McNutty]

Originally Posted by Brian

lmgtfy is trolling on any message board I've even seen.

Who are you friends with, to get away with it?

I can understand wanting to push yourself to achieve more, but it'll pay off more if you wait until someone beats your "biggest baby" record to pull out the even bigger guns.

[Steerpike]

I think you guys should just apologise to the British Crown for the mess you've made of the place, and ask if you can be let back in now.

[Glazer]

Do you think they'd have us?

[Jaglavak]

What, are you kidding? Now that Gambia has pulled the plug on the Commonwealth, you guys are on the rocks!

Originally Posted by ryevermouthbitters

What I don't understand is why the Zoo and the rest of the Smithsonian are covered by the shutdown.

Standard procedure. Apply the pain first to things that are popular with the public.

[Steerpike]

WE'RE SORRY WE BROKE IT MRS QUEEN AND WE'RE COLD AND HUNGRY NOW

[Jeff]

The stage is set for the Canadian invasion...

[Jaglavak]

I do swear that I will be faithful to my beer, eh...

[KidVermicious]

Originally Posted by Jaglavak

Interesting proposal... but I'm not sure that machine guns and grenade launchers are really a good idea for the general public.

Originally Posted by Jeff

The stage is set for the Canadian invasion...

Please no Bryan Adams. I'll watch all the hockey you want, I swear.

[hatesfreedom]

Originally Posted by Chocodile

I'm not a Tea Partier or even a registered Republican, but why do we need a national zoo? It was a great thing in 1889 when few regions had their own zoo, but we've moved past that.

Because it doesn't cost much of anything in the grand scheme of things and when people come to DC they can marvel at the majesty of free zoo and museums provided courtesy of the United States Government? You might as well ask why we have memorials, statues, national parks, and reflecting pools. Because people like them. Plus it looks really lame if we don't have them.

[Wolf Larsen]

Originally Posted by Jeff

The stage is set for the Canadian invasion...

First launch a barrage of Tim's Bits and then when we are occupied with eating them, launch the main invasion!

[Chocodile]

Originally Posted by hatesfreedom

Because it doesn't cost much of anything in the grand scheme of things and when people come to DC they can marvel at the majesty of free zoo and museums provided courtesy of the United States Government?

I understand that it doesn't cost much, but all of these small things add up. I don't think think a zoo is going to sway anyone's opinion of whether the USA is majestic or not. I'd turn it loose. The Smithsonian is another story, and I'm in favor of having a centralized museum system documenting the history and culture of the nation.

Originally Posted by hatesfreedom

You might as well ask why we have memorials, statues, national parks, and reflecting pools. Because people like them. Plus it looks really lame if we don't have them.

I like donuts but the government isn't handing those out. National parks are fine, I'm less enthusiastic about the need for memorials, statues and reflecting pools. I don't think we need one for every single war, cause and public figure. The cost is essentially front loaded and they don't cost much when compared to the defense budget, but everything adds up. An occasional simple plot of unmolested land is all that's needed to keep the place from looking lame.

We have to cut back somewhere, and it seems that nobody is willing to consider eliminating anything.

[The Futility of Nihilism]

Originally Posted by Brian

lmgtfy is trolling on any message board I've even seen.

Since Chaco prefers to handle this in a different thread in order to avoid derailing this one any further, here's my response.

[Wolf Larsen]

Originally Posted by Chocodile

We have to cut back somewhere, and it seems that nobody is willing to consider eliminating anything.

This is the organizational imperative problem with government. The revenue of all entities fluctuates over time. Individuals, households and businesses usually have ways of cutting expenses when revenue drops. But governments have the problem that elected officials don't get re-elected for cutting programs, they get re-elected for bringing valuable pork to their districts. So projects and programs get created when times are good, but there is no mechanism for belt tightening when times are bad. Most governments have dealt with this by using Keynesian deficit spending all the time rather than just during recessions as Keynes himself advocated. The problem with this is that sooner or later people stop being willing to lend you money.

Having a definite sunset date when a program is created would be a step forward. This way the program would have be re-authorized every 5 or 10 years to keep it going. But as I said, officials don't get re-elected for cutting programs, so I see inflation in our future.

[eleanorigby]

Originally Posted by hatesfreedom

Because it doesn't cost much of anything in the grand scheme of things and when people come to DC they can marvel at the majesty of free zoo and museums provided courtesy of the United States Government? You might as well ask why we have memorials, statues, national parks, and reflecting pools. Because people like them. Plus it looks really lame if we don't have them.

This is absolutely correct. I'm not wild about zoos, but zoos function as more than point-and-gawp at the fauna. Animal research and international cooperation of the same is important for the entire planet.

[Aside]: Why is it that if an individual doesn't understand the point of a program or gment service, they immediately assume it's not needed or "essential"? Government does not automatically mean bad or over-priced.

Originally Posted by Chocodile

I understand that it doesn't cost much, but all of these small things add up. I don't think think a zoo is going to sway anyone's opinion of whether the USA is majestic or not. I'd turn it loose. The Smithsonian is another story, and I'm in favor of having a centralized museum system documenting the history and culture of the nation.

I like donuts but the government isn't handing those out. National parks are fine, I'm less enthusiastic about the need for memorials, statues and reflecting pools. I don't think we need one for every single war, cause and public figure. The cost is essentially front loaded and they don't cost much when compared to the defense budget, but everything adds up. An occasional simple plot of unmolested land is all that's needed to keep the place from looking lame.

We have to cut back somewhere, and it seems that nobody is willing to consider eliminating anything.

Which war would you like to ignore and what message does that send to those families left behind? A marble monument and some money for the walking wounded and those left bereaved is the fucking LEAST we can do.

Sunset clauses would be fine (but open to huge abuse), but Gment is not the only entity that gets money and then looks for a reason to keep getting it. It happens in private industry all the time, and even in charities (March of Dimes comes to mind). I'm not anti-March of Dimes or charities, just pointing out the underlying tenet.

[Glazer]

Like said until some thing is done to reform SS and Medi-Care/Cade nibbling at departments ain't going to do much.

[Chocodile]

Originally Posted by eleanorigby

[Aside]: Why is it that if an individual doesn't understand the point of a program or gment service, they immediately assume it's not needed or "essential"? Government does not automatically mean bad or over-priced.

I'm not reflexively saying that it's not needed, I'm asking why we need it. I still think that the existing municipal zoos are already doing most of the work that's being attributed to the national zoo but I'm far from an expert. I would just like government to take a hard look at what they have and whether it still serves the purpose.

Originally Posted by eleanorigby

Which war would you like to ignore and what message does that send to those families left behind? A marble monument and some money for the walking wounded and those left bereaved is the fucking LEAST we can do.

Ignore none of them. Put up one monument and say this is for everyone. Why do we need separate ones? It's vanity. Your war is no more important or different than my war.

Originally Posted by eleanorigby

Sunset clauses would be fine (but open to huge abuse), but Gment is not the only entity that gets money and then looks for a reason to keep getting it. It happens in private industry all the time, and even in charities (March of Dimes comes to mind). I'm not anti-March of Dimes or charities, just pointing out the underlying tenet.

Several arguments have stated that the same abuses occur in private industry. They are wrong there as well, it's not a valid excuse. I'm in favor of capitalism. I'm in favor of government services. But the United States is not the country it once was and can't continue to operate as though this is the rosy '50s and '60s. We need to rein in corporate greed and borrowing on the future. We once thought that everything was possible. It's not.

I know that both government and private industry are always looking for ways to cut back, but everyone is guarding their fiefdom and the things that fall are only those that put up the weakest defense, not necessarily the things that would provide the greatest benefit for the least impact.

[Harry]

I don't see any point in arguing what should or should not be covered, cut or reorganized with regard to Government spending. Our government has proven time and again that it doesn't particularly give a shit about the constituency that put them in office. This took place at a luncheon yesterday regarding the shutdown, and it's a collection of quotes from Republican Senators who apparently didn't have the balls to let themselves be identified. This is what I think is important:

“It was very evident to everyone in the room that Cruz doesn’t have a strategy – he never had a strategy, and could never answer a question about what the end-game was,” said one senator who attended the meeting, per Politico. “I just wish the 35 House members that have bought the snake oil that was sold could witness what was witnessed today at lunch.” Another quote: “He kept trying to change the subject because he never could answer the question,” the senator said. “It’s pretty evident it’s never been about a strategy – it’s been about him. That’s unfortunate. I think he’s done our country a major disservice. I think he’s done Republicans a major disservice.”

Seems like this is just a big fucking game.

[KidVermicious]

Originally Posted by Harry

Seems like this is just a big fucking game.

Quoted for truth. Sometimes when my tinfoil hat gets a little heavy I wonder if the entire point of this charade is to make Obamacare seem preferable to the alternative.

[eleanorigby]

Putting up one monument doesn't work (or wouldn't work). Humans crave ceremony and ritual, they also seem to need war on some weird level. Honoring the fallen after the event has been going on since humans evolved. Why would the USA be any different?

I don't know, but will hazard a guess, that the National Zoo acts much like a touchstone and guidance facility for state and regional zoos (I've actually never heard of a regional zoo). Why, yes, they do: NationalZoo.

Places like Busch Gardens are all very well (if you like that sort of thing), but Gment can do more than private industry--we truly are stronger and more able united than in separate fiefdoms with Busch Gardens competing for animals with Sea World or whatever. I'm sure that Sea World and Busch Gardens work with the National Zoo--I know the Shedd Aquarium here does (more with the MBL-Marine Biological Labs and NOAA, but still), as does Brookfield Zoo and Lincoln Park Zoo.

Much of what the Gment does is mundane, un-sexy, behind the scenes maintenance and support: the fisheries example is an excellent one. The NLM is another--it acts as a collation agency for all Medical Libraries in the US, and as a monumentally important one for the world. It IS the touchstone for medical research (with its partner, the NIH, of course). It's also dry, un-sexy, boring to most people, and very quiet. It's closed now. NO private industry can replace its databanks or other resources, not Mayo, not Harvard, not Kaiser Permanente, nobody. And what people tend to forget is that private industry does not want to partner with other private industry: they're in direct competition with one another. I am reminded of the Australian railroads--all of different gauges etc, which made travel a nightmare for people in the early 1900s.

Let's make it local: your county extension service/office. I'd like to tell you more about them, but they're closed. CountyExtensionServices. They are tied to land-grant universities (which helped make this nation great, literally--thanks, Abe Lincoln and Grover Cleveland!) Here's a link that doesn't just say "Closed for business": ExtensionServices

County Extension Offices do important work regarding local land management, insect and vermin control, crop issues (vague because I'm no farmer). They usually operate on a shoe-string budget as well. Agents don't make a ton of money CountyExtensionAgentSalaryInfo, but especially in rural areas, they work hard.
TypesofPositions.


I will not argue that there is no waste in government--there is. Most of us are old enough to remember the $80 screwdrivers purchased by the Pentagon in the 80s. I see I have underestimated its cost:

‘In hearings before the House Committee on Armed Services in 1984 – and in addition to showing that $750 was paid per toilet seat – the prices of ordinary tools at retail level were compared with defense contractors’ prices, for 21 items. At your neighborhood hardware store, screwdrivers, wrenches and the like all sold for less than $13, and many under $5. The defense contractors sold none for less than $225 (a screwdriver, retailing for under $3), and their highest price was $1,150 (a wrench, retail price $4.88). The total retail price for the 21 items was $92.44; but from the contractors, $10,168.00.’

from here:W. Adams & J. Brock, The Bigness Complex: Industry, Labor, and Government in the American Economy (New York: Pantheon, 1986) or here.

I don't have any answers--it would seem that trusting that people will act with honesty and integrity is hopelessly naive and rather simplistic these days (since time began, really). I just know that slashing and burning Gment programs willy-nilly is not the answer. There will not be one answer to something so complex and huge.

[Veb]

Welcome to our new reality. Better get used to it because structurally, nuthin's gonna change. This is the law of unintended consequences biting the GOP, and of course the entire country, right in the ass. To be clear, the left isn't one whit more immune to blinkered thinking than the right. But in this particular instance, the GOP screwed up, big time, and for a long time.

IMO the handwriting appeared on the wall as soon as the massive redistricting went through. No, it was nothing new and yeah, the Democrats have done it too. But this time the GOP decided to create districts heavily weighed to the most virulent, crazy Tea Party fucks, working on the theory that hey, they're conservatives so of course they'll want the same things we do. We'll shrink the government, cut red tape for business and okay, make a few token noises about bringing the country back to church and God it that'd make the wingnuts happy. Neato! What could possibly go wrong?

Instead they created an entrenched little cadre of mullahs who represent, quite accurately, their equally blinkered and brain dead constituencies. Earmarks are a thing of the past so there's no mechanism to haul the extremists back into line. All the mullahs have to do is play to their fanatical Tea Party base. There are are no reins on their showboating, shortsightedness and intransigence. The Frankenstein minority can do whatever they want, without consequences. Shut down the government? Their whole shtick is hatred of government so their cretinous constituents are all in favor of that shit, cheered on of course by Fox News and other right wing ranters who don't have to care about, you know, reality. Damage an already fragile economy? Blame it on Obama. Make the US look like total idiots to the rest of the world? They hate furriners anyway because the US is all exceptional and shit, so freebie points for them.

Of course it doesn't help to have a spineless toady like John Boehner as Speaker either. He has the votes right now, between Democrats and responsible Republicans, to end the shutdown immediately. All he'd have to do is bring the resolution to the floor for an yes/no vote. The one dim glimmer of hope is that the financial community and oh yeah, big donors to the GOP have started rumbling their dissatisfaction with the idiocy. The shutdown will end but the dysfunction is built into the system now.

[eleanorigby]

Well said, Veb. I would like this way of thinking to die: just criticism (and even unjust criticism) of whichever party does not mean complete and total approval of the party the critic favors. Well, the Dems did it too! is no argument. Neither party is above criticism for their actions and even their platforms. It's the GOPs turn in the hot seat at present for very good reasons.

[Tuckerfan]

Veb, I love you and want to have 10,000 of your babies.

[Brian]

There have been 18 shutdowns since 1976. That's roughly an average of once every two years. Interestingly, 15 of them have occurred when Democrats controlled the government. In the '70s, shutdowns occurred when the White House, Senate, and House were ALL controlled by Democrats.

Why is this one causing so much angst? Because Republicans?

It is the House that is actually doing its job in this case.

Originally Posted by James Madison, Federalist No. 58

This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.

The argument that "elections have consequences" goes both ways, my friends. The Republicans won the House, the body that represents the people, they can defund the ACA, the EPA, or the Interior. It's the Senate and the President that are obstructing.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by sturmhauke

It might be. But then again, the Dems had close to a supermajority in both houses with the 111th Congress right after Obama first took office, and they still managed to fuck things up.

That's somethign people like to say, but it's not actually true. He got a historic amount of his agenda pushed through in the first two years. Something like over 90% of his agenda was passed through that Democratic Congress. He focused primarily on the non-hotbutton issues in the beginning in order to get it done.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Brian

There have been 18 shutdowns since 1976. That's roughly an average of once every two years. Interestingly, 15 of them have occurred when Democrats controlled the government. In the '70s, shutdowns occurred when the White House, Senate, and House were ALL controlled by Democrats.

Why is this one causing so much angst? Because Republicans?

No, it's because Republicans are using it as a tactic to stop a constitutionally enacted law from being implemented.

[Brian]

Originally Posted by mswas

No, it's because Republicans are using it as a tactic to stop a constitutionally enacted law from being implemented.

And that's different from previous shutdowns, how? For example, the Democrats shut down the government over the funding of abortion in Medicaid, which was a constitutionally enacted law.

[Pere]

Shutdown facts overheard today:

1. Everybody employed by the government, except military personnel, is now unemployed.
2. This means we don't have a government.
3. This, in turn, means we are not a country. :scitard:

I await further episodes. I'm somewhat concerned about what that stateless military will get up to.

[Judge Mental]

Originally Posted by Brian

For example, the Democrats shut down the government over the funding of abortion in Medicaid, which was a constitutionally enacted law.

WHO did WHAT? The Dems shut down the government? When was this? Over the funding of abortion, which they favor? What are you going on about?

[Veb]

A concise graph of the government shutdowns to date: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governm..._United_States

[Zeener Diode]

Originally Posted by Veb

A concise graph of the government shutdowns to date: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governm..._United_States

So the gov't shut down 5 times under President Carter and 8 times under Reagan. Why does it seem the sky is falling ths time?

[Harry]

Originally Posted by Zeener Diode

So the gov't shut down 5 times under President Carter and 8 times under Reagan. Why does it seem the sky is falling ths time?

Because of the October 17th deadline on Treasury's ability to borrow money. Surely you've heard of it?

[ryevermouthbitters]

Originally Posted by Judge Mental

WHO did WHAT? The Dems shut down the government? When was this? Over the funding of abortion, which they favor? What are you going on about?

Believe it or not, there was a time when neither party was as monolithic as it is now on the abortion issue. Brian's description of the shutdown is largely accurate. There were plenty of pro-choice Democrats in the House, of course, but yes, the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives induced a government shutdown over a Senate proposal to relax the federal prohibition on funding abortions.

[Katriona]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governm..._United_States

1977 The Democratically-controlled House continued to uphold the ban on using Medicaid dollars to pay for abortions, except in cases where the life of the mother was at stake. Meanwhile, the Democratic-controlled Senate pressed to loosen the ban to allow abortion funding in the case of rape or incest. A funding gap was created when disagreement over the issue between the houses had become tied to funding for the Departments of Labor and HEW, leading to a partial government shutdown. A temporary agreement was made to restore funding through October 31, 1977, allowing more time for Congress to resolve its dispute.

[Judge Mental]

Originally Posted by Katriona

A funding gap was created when disagreement over the issue between the houses had become tied to funding for the Departments of Labor and HEW, leading to a partial government shutdown.

So TWO departments had SOME of their funding held up for a few days, while ONE issue was ironed out. Is this what you're maintaining is in any way analogous to what's going on now? Really?

[Steerpike]

SORRY MRS QUEEN BRIAN DID IT HE BROKE IT

[Tuckerfan]

Originally Posted by ryevermouthbitters

Believe it or not, there was a time when neither party was as monolithic as it is now on the abortion issue. Brian's description of the shutdown is largely accurate. There were plenty of pro-choice Democrats in the House, of course, but yes, the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives induced a government shutdown over a Senate proposal to relax the federal prohibition on funding abortions.

It was just as stupid then, as it is now. The same holds true of blocking nominees from being voted on, simply because of a handful of Senators have their panties in a bunch.

[Chocodile]

What happens if there's a major hurricane or an earthquake. Another Boston-type bombing that requires FBI assistance? Surely it's more complicated than just telling the National Guard and FEMA that we were just kidding and they need to get to the scene right away. If something happens that requires government intervention then this could get real ugly.

[Harry]

Funny you should mention it. FEMA is recalling some of its furloughed employees because of the storm in the Gulf

[Veb]

Originally Posted by Zeener Diode

So the gov't shut down 5 times under President Carter and 8 times under Reagan. Why does it seem the sky is falling ths time?

Because the Tea Party cretins and their GOP enablers have impaired the country's financial standing. Their showboating antics cast real doubt on how stable it is. Remember when the US got downgraded during their last little "evil government" spasm? The problem isn't whether the US is wealthy enough to pay its bills; the problem is whether the dysfunctional political system will allow it.

FTR, I'm an Independent, blessed with equal cynicism about both major parties. Both are bloated, corrupt and inefficient. Both are primarily dedicated to staying firmly attached to power and the money that comes with it. Like all political parties, they're basically tape worms. Realistically, the choice usually comes down to which tape worm will sicken the host but not actually kill it.

The Tea Party tape worm, and its jittery GOP hangers-on, are the ones inflicting the worst harm this time. This shutdown is particularly pernicious because it's unnecessary, not to mention stupid, even by the stated opinion of most House Republicans. It isn't to defund the ACA; the law is already in effect. A Supreme Court challenge and 40-some attempts to repeal the law failed. So now the spin is that it is just leverage to fight the debt ceiling again. Of course their argument is that they're just fighting to correct years of bloat. There's some justification for that, but they lack credibility, given that they've mostly just tried to invalidate election of their hated opponents for years instead of applying themselves to actual solutions. For all their supposed deep concern about the spending and the economy, they uttered not one peep when BushII started two wars and borrowed the money to fund them. They also fought viciously to avoid even addressing the pernicious hemorrhage of health care costs on the economy that even Nixon lamented. (And the solution was torpedoed by none other than Ted Kenned; idiocy isn't limited by party lines.)

Anyway, the GOP has done a dismal job of actually being, you know, conservative. The Tea Party is a sick joke, a Frankenstein monster that got away from its rich funders. But the usual, idiotic "go team!" partisanship has worsened to the point of flat refusal to govern. It's not the deepest analysis but when even the business community thinks the GOP sucks, the body politic is in bad shape: http://www.businessinsider.com/conse...y-want-2013-10

[BJMoose]

Anyway, back to the shutdown and its potentially broad economic impact.

This time around the FAA closed the office that processes aircraft registrations. So, right now, no airplane can be sold in America. That's huge news here in Wichita, which still fancies itself The Air Capital of the World and is home to Cessna, Learjet, Beechcraft and Spirit Aerosystems (formerly Boeing-Wichita; they still do little more than make subassemblies for Boeing-Seattle). While the factories are running now, it can't be long before the serious lack of cash flow closes those facilities (and their suppliers). The prospect of about ten percent of the local workforce suddenly being idled is not a pleasant one.

[Chocodile]

I read that Connecticut is idling workers because they can't make submarines or helicopters. The companies are private but they need military inspectors on the line. I presume that the state is a lot like Michigan in that there are a whole lot of small businesses that are suppliers to the big defense contractors, so large swaths of the state could rapidly become unemployed. Oh well, there's always that huge casino to make lose a few dollars in.

These types of things must be happening all across the country, and many who choose to work in aero and shipyards would be conservatives.