US Federal Government Shutdown

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Convenience. The founding fathers barely started dying off before the Supreme Court was arbitrating between the executive and the legislative. You could say it all started with the setting up of a national bank...

Actually, you can blame Alex for quite a lot besides that. He was, effectively, the person who founded the political party system in the USA. The Constitution was written, in part, to PREVENT such using the college of electors as a brake against populism and demagoguery and by giving the Vice Presidency to the second vote getter (likely to be an opponent in any party contest) and by forcing those in office to face the voters frequently. Despite that, Hamilton had a party functioning effectively by the 3rd election.

[Lemur]

Well, from a cursory Google, looks like the "debt ceiling" got rolling in 1917, so if we're blaming Hamilton, we gotta do it indirectly.

Prior to 1917, the United States had no debt ceiling. The Congress either authorized specific loans or allowed the Treasury to issue certain debt instruments and individual debt issues for specific purposes. Sometimes Congress gave the Treasury discretion over what type of debt instrument would be issued. The United States first instituted a statutory debt limit with the Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917. This legislation set limits on the aggregate amount of debt that could be accumulated through individual categories of debt (such as bonds and bills). In 1939, Congress instituted the first limit on total accumulated debt over all kinds of instruments.

Prior to the Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, the debt ceiling played an important role since Congress had few opportunities to hold hearings and debates on the budget. James Surowiecki argued that the debt ceiling lost its usefulness after these reforms to the budget process.

In 1979, noting the potential problems of hitting a default, Dick Gephardt imposed the "Gephardt Rule," a parliamentary rule that deemed the debt ceiling raised when a budget was passed. This resolved the contradiction in voting for appropriations but not voting to fund them. The rule stood until it was repealed by the Republican Congress in 1995.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Spot-on:

I see absolutely no [Republican] strategy to deal with what everyone agrees is a deeply dysfunctional and grotesquely inefficient healthcare system. I see no viable way to bring down the long-term debt, because such a goal can only be achieved in our system with compromises from both parties, and the GOP is offering nothing the Democrats want. That’s why this is such a serious crisis, because the key driver of it has no real idea what it wants to do except destroy a re-elected president. [...]

This crisis has almost nothing to do with actual policy – as you can see from a base Republican’s rational support for a single-payer healthcare system and willingness to get Obamacare insurance. There is nothing to the current Republican strategy but blind, irrational hatred for a re-elected president: “I don’t like him, and I don’t feel comfortable with anything he’s got to do with.” Somehow, this “feeling” must be granted some “relief”, or they will bring down the world economy.

For some it may be blind, irrational hatred of the President. Such yahoos are out there.

For the bulk of the Tea Party crowd and their fellow travelers, it is more a question of fear than of hate. They truly believe that the ACA is not simply a means of improving healthcare coverage but a stepping stone to national health care; that it is the continuation of America's transformation from a republic of individual states to a federal monolith. They view this as their chance to stop another Medicare or Welfare before it can take root and make itself another "3rd rail." And they fear such a transformation just as they loathe those elements: Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, that have already been enacted.

Why such a sense of fear over a program intended to promote a better society for all persons? Because they see the future as a disaster waiting to happen when the social safety net becomes unsupportable. Try a read of some of Christopher Nuttall's work if you don't believe people can think about it that way. I assure you, quite a number do.

Me? I am not so sure. I don't sit around wondering if Obama is really seeking to create an American version of Stalin's Soviet Russia. I am certain he is not. I do not believe there is some grand plan to "rule them all and in the darkness bind them." Outside of sword and sorcery fiction, it comes off a bit cheesy. But I do have doubts about the economic supportability of a program of government trending towards the enforcement of "equality of outcome" rather than of opportunity.

[TinCow]

So yeah, this does have some of the shape of a constitutional crisis.

I believe this is precisely what we are in now. I used to believe that there was a lot of wisdom in the way our government was created, with separation of powers between the branches, as well as with the distribution of powers between the states and the federal government. However, I have begun to have serious reservations over the quality of our entire system of government. As I now see it, any system of government that allows an impasse like this to occur is so fundamentally flawed as to be actively dangerous. Our current system of government is broken and no harping on about the wisdom of lots of old dead guys will change that fact. While the system worked relatively well for nearly 200 years (minus a minor civil war), I do not hold out much hope of us ever recovering from the current crisis. Now that minority parties have figured out how to block the entire working of the government, there is nothing to stop them from continuing to do that in the future, absent a total overhaul of the redistricting system, which itself I believe is impossible. Essentially, they can't put the rabbit back in the hat. As such, I am concerned that we have before us decades of political turmoil of this nature. The only alternative is going the French route and simply creating a new Republic with a new Constitution, but that's basically impossible too.

[Lemur]

For the bulk of the Tea Party crowd and their fellow travelers, it is more a question of fear than of hate. [...] They view this as their chance to stop another Medicare or Welfare before it can take root and make itself another "3rd rail." And they fear such a transformation just as they loathe those elements: Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, that have already been enacted.

Yes, I remember how outraged and fearful they were when the last completely unfunded expansion to Medicare was enacted.

Oh, wait ... that's right ... they didn't give a hoot.

Nah, not buying it. I believe that may be a rationale, but if the hard right actually gave a damn about deficits and debt, they would behave differently when governing.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Yes, it may well qualify as a constitutional crisis. I hadn't framed it in those terms in my mind yet, but you make a nice point.

[CrossLOPER]

When Soldiers aren't paid what they are owed, a nation is in deep trouble.

Russian Federation forces are doing great.

[Kralizec]

Just to be clear...

A lot of Republican representatives are toeing the Tea Party line, not necessarily because they agree with it themselves, but because they feel they have more to fear from a challenger in their primaries than from their Democratic opponent.

They proceed to (ab)use the fact that at least some Republican votes are needed to approve a budget, by forcing even the moderate Republicans to toe the Tea Party line. So a sub-part of of a majority in one of the three elected Federal offices (the others being the senate and POTUS) is effectively shutting everything down to get their way on one single issue.

Isn't this strategy self-defeating? I mean that certain individual Republicans in the House might be right in that their constituency will probably vote "R" anyway but that their biggest competition comes from the Tea Party in the primaries. But in constituencies that are less certain, the majority of the voters might chose to vote Democratic instead of someone who will support anything, no matter how stupid, as long as it pleases the Tea Party.

In short: are the HoR Republicans more concerned about keeping their own office than the long-term interests of their own party? If yes, doesn't the RNC have anything to say about this?

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

An interesting consideration of US paralysis from the Australian perspective.

'If the USS America goes down, little HMAS Australia will find it tough not to get sucked into the vortex'

'No one really knows what will happen if the debt ceiling is not raised. Views range from, it’ll be fine, to it’ll be Armageddon. The US Treasury for its part has put out a paper that paints a pretty scary picture.

After looking at what has occurred in 2011 when the US nearly reached the debt limit, it concluded that a debt default “could have a catastrophic effect on not just financial markets but also on job creation, consumer spending and economic growth”.

It also noted that “many private-sector analysts believing that it would lead to events of the magnitude of late 2008 or worse, and the result then was a recession more severe than any seen since the Great Depression”.

And just in case you are a glass-half-full kind of person and you still have some optimism, the report ends on this less than upbeat note: “Considering the experience of countries around that world that have defaulted on their debt... [the] consequences, including high interest rates, reduced investment, higher debt payments, and slow economic growth, could last for more than a generation.”

Cheery...

Our economy is like a dinghy in the ocean of the international economy. If the US scuttles itself though political intransigence, without another mining boom, little HMAS Australia would find it tough not to get sucked into the vortex as USS America goes down.'

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Isn't this strategy self-defeating? I mean that certain individual Republicans in the House might be right in that their constituency will probably vote "R" anyway but that their biggest competition comes from the Tea Party in the primaries. But in constituencies that are less certain, the majority of the voters might chose to vote Democratic instead of someone who will support anything, no matter how stupid, as long as it pleases the Tea Party.

In short: are the HoR Republicans more concerned about keeping their own office than the long-term interests of their own party? If yes, doesn't the RNC have anything to say about this?

Many GOP reps, even in moderate districts, have a hard corps of Taxed Enough Already sympathizers among their normal GOP voting base. If they lose that chunk of voters (usually a highly motivated slice of their district's voters) because they oppose the TEA holy grail of knocking out Obamacare, they may lose the edge they need to best the DEM running against them. So, even in districts where the TEA party enjoys only marginal favor, that slice may represent the margin of victory for a GOP incumbent.

The TEA party's influence is, therefore, somewhat broader than one might suppose from its raw percentage.

Latest Pew poll apparently shows the US public more or less evenly split with 44% blaming GOP and 42% blaming Obama and the Dems. Though apparently, that was in a forced choice kinda question. There is a huge group that thinks they are all being idiots, regardless of party.

[ICantSpellDawg]

One way to make sure that the US stops borrowing money is to blow out the credit rating. It would force hard choices to be made. Skyrocket taxes and cut government or just slash and burn government. It could be a way to terminate nearly every government employee and start from an actual baseline, figuring out what is actually necessary expense moving forward. Farmland in the midwest wouldnt be able to be paid to lie dormant, in an attempt to bank on the increase in cost of food, farmers would have more incentive to produce than the government had money to pay. The purchasing power of all nations would rise and increase their ability to afford food. More food would hit the global marketplace. I'm in favor of a temporary expansion of the timit, but as a constituent, even if I lost my job, I could be persuaded to support a credit correction by way of default. That is the beauty of ideology over the rest. It is harder to take an individual hostage if they have a principled stoicism. Or very little could happen. Let's try it. Live a little

[Seamus Fermanagh]

GC:

I just don't see the yahoo percentage among the TEA crowd being that high. Mostly Ayn Rand FTW types, not stosstruppen.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Most tea partiers just want to go back in time. The reality is that tons of people are going to be losing their jobs over the next 20 years with very little job creation. Taxes are going to skyrocket and the economy is going to tank because people really aren't necessary for technological or economic growth anymore. Low taxes and individual freedom will be a thing of the past. We all know it, but who wants to live in a world like that? It will be like wall-e meets the matrix. Maybe the meaning of life was to find a way to make work obsolete. We have done a bang up job, we just need to find a way to feed people until they all die out from natural causes. Or until they can just live forever.

FTW!

[Shaka_Khan]

Russian Federation forces are doing great.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not Russian so I'm not saying this out of nationalism. The dire situation of the Russian army that you think about happened during the 90s and early 2000s. Russia is recovering and her army are being well-fed. Russia developed new advanced weapons a few years ago. In fact, Moscow has the most billionaires in the world according to a global rich list, although the wealth gap is still a problem.

[a completely inoffensive name]

This is not a constitutional crisis. This is a civic duty crisis.

The strength of any Republic lies in the strength of the public's constitution.

I am only 21 years of age. My hands are not completely clean of ignorant political practice. But the country that has repeatedly given Congress with a 10% approval rating a generous 90% incumbent rate, every two years, decade after decade has no sympathy for me.

Us Americans love to pay lip to personal responsibility and yet strive for lives completely devoid of even the most basic of communal duties that all free men are born with.

[Beskar]

I disagree, but its an outlandish scenario either way IMO.

I disagree too, but I am not American, so i only see Teaparty Propaganda and how they act infront of television and youtube. Then I see people like Sarah Palin are spearheading the campaign, and Michele Bachman, who also doesn't know anything about anything, I don't think I could trust them to pick up my groceries from the supermarket even with a shopping list and pictures of the items. It kind of gives the perception people don't exist in a plane called 'reality'.

On the otherhand, Hilary Clinton internationally comes across as some one who knows what she is doing in a political office, ideological differences aside.

Is Democrat propaganda so much more successful overseas, or things are so bad in the echo-chambers that millions of Americans have switched off their brains?

[CountArach]

But the country that has repeatedly given Congress with a 10% approval rating a generous 90% incumbent rate, every two years, decade after decade has no sympathy for me.

That is because, by and large, people do in fact like their own congressperson:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/162362/am...sentative.aspx

I am never surprised by the low ratings that 'Congress' gets in polls. Take the current Republican-controlled Congress at any point. If you asked the average Democrat if they approved or disapproved then, from a purely partisan standpoint, most of them will say disapprove because they don't think it is progressive enough. So that is a substantial portion of the population against you already. Then you consider those who are to the right of the average Republican and they will also disapprove. Then you have Republicans who will disapprove because they think that Congress hasn't pushed its agenda hard enough. Then there are Republicans who will disapprove because they think there are too many Democrats or they perceive Democrats as standing in the way of an agenda. Not only that but it is a fairly common thing for the media to create narratives that focus primarily on conflict, so what is presented is a picture of an ineffective institution (which, by all accounts, is not too inaccurate), which is constantly bickering and this will throw further people offside. So after all this it would be astonishing if they could ever register higher than 20% of the country, except at times of crisis (I recall that approval was high post-9/11 and at the outset of the Iraq War, as was Presidential approval).

Anyway that's neither here nor there, just a random sidenote.

[CountArach]

Anyway actually on topic I found this comment utterly despicable:

Rep. Lee Terry, R-Neb., was blunt when asked if he would continue collecting his paychecks during the shutdown.

“Dang straight,” he said.

Terry suggested it's an irrelevant question because the situation would be resolved before long.

What about the other members who were donating or forgoing their pay?

“Whatever gets them good press,” Terry said. “That's all that it's going to be. God bless them. But you know what? I've got a nice house and a kid in college, and I'll tell you we cannot handle it. Giving our paycheck away when you still worked and earned it? That's just not going to fly.”

Yes. Because I am absolutely sure that none of the furloughed workers had a house repayment to make or a kid in college.

Just to be clear I have no problem with Congresspeople accepting their pay cheques while they are working, but FFS at least have some tact when you are doing it.

[a completely inoffensive name]

That is because, by and large, people do in fact like their own congressperson:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/162362/am...sentative.aspx

I am never surprised by the low ratings that 'Congress' gets in polls. Take the current Republican-controlled Congress at any point. If you asked the average Democrat if they approved or disapproved then, from a purely partisan standpoint, most of them will say disapprove because they don't think it is progressive enough. So that is a substantial portion of the population against you already. Then you consider those who are to the right of the average Republican and they will also disapprove. Then you have Republicans who will disapprove because they think that Congress hasn't pushed its agenda hard enough. Then there are Republicans who will disapprove because they think there are too many Democrats or they perceive Democrats as standing in the way of an agenda. Not only that but it is a fairly common thing for the media to create narratives that focus primarily on conflict, so what is presented is a picture of an ineffective institution (which, by all accounts, is not too inaccurate), which is constantly bickering and this will throw further people offside. So after all this it would be astonishing if they could ever register higher than 20% of the country, except at times of crisis (I recall that approval was high post-9/11 and at the outset of the Iraq War, as was Presidential approval).

Anyway that's neither here nor there, just a random sidenote.

I understand all of that. My point is that believing that your Congressman is the golden idol among the monsters that inhabit Congress is a symptom of the abdication of political responsibilities. People either don't vote or they pick a side and love their Congressman for the pork they chastise others for.

None of this has anything to do with the way government is structured. It is because of people who believe that Nader is the devil for splitting the liberal vote. Voters self identify as the party they belong to. Thus an attack on the party is an attack on ones self. This perfectly sums up the temper tantrums and enabling of both Congressmen and voters alike. The duty of every citizen is to look out for the American community as a whole, this concept has been completely lost.

Hence why we have zealots like Dawg advocating for nothing less than collapse of our standard of living in order to satisfy his own conception of what the perfect life is.

[Montmorency]

So after all this it would be astonishing if they could ever register higher than 20% of the country, except at times of crisis (I recall that approval was high post-9/11 and at the outset of the Iraq War, as was Presidential approval).

That's what happens when you work backwards from a conclusion.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I disagree too, but I am not American, so i only see Teaparty Propaganda and how they act infront of television and youtube. Then I see people like Sarah Palin are spearheading the campaign, and Michele Bachman, who also doesn't know anything about anything, I don't think I could trust them to pick up my groceries from the supermarket even with a shopping list and pictures of the items. It kind of gives the perception people don't exist in a plane called 'reality'.

On the otherhand, Hilary Clinton internationally comes across as some one who knows what she is doing in a political office, ideological differences aside.

Is Democrat propaganda so much more successful overseas, or things are so bad in the echo-chambers that millions of Americans have switched off their brains?

A bit of both really. The bulk of our media, aside from Fox News and the WSJ, are populated (heavily) by people who are politically left-leaning themselves. They don't set out to slant their coverage per se -- and can and do hammer any and all politicians with tough questions from time to time -- but in a hundred little things like word choice, body language, eye contact or tone of voice they (possibly unknowingly) slant their coverage (I recall a couple of posts by Euro.orgers who visited the US, saw our news programs first hand for a change, and were appalled at the bias). So yes, to some extent, you see a biased view from our media that represents our political left as rational intellectuals and our political right as ideologues and airheads. Neither Palin or Bachman is as vapid as the coverage makes them out to be, just as Obama is not the would-be Stalinist our right wing radio pundits demagogue about.

That having been said, there are a fair number of Americans who seek out our right-leaning radio media gurus to reinforce their own belief that their beliefs will and should be triumphant and skimp on the thinking part. There are not enough right wingers out there who, like myself, force themselves to listen to Rachel Maddow et al so as to consider a different perspective on the issue. Ignorance may be bliss, but it does make for ideological fanaticism. Also, remember that the USA has an anti-intellectual tradition of long standing (Common Sense and Street Smarts are usually depicted as wiser/better/cooler than formal education; labeling someone as "book smart" is meant as an insult) and politicians strive mightily to be seen as "just another citizen," "homespun," or down to earth.


Small points: I would probably loathe her policy initiatives, but acknowledge that Clinton has very much been groomed for the Presidency and probably has enough spine and intelligence to acquit herself well. Bachman clearly did not have anything resembling that level of gravitas, which is why she good a swift trip out of the primaries last go around. Palin as well simply doesn't have the depth and breadth of experience the position OUGHT to require. I actually think you're going to see a serious run made by Jeb Bush this next time around. Cruz and Paul might challenge that, as might Rubio -- it is early days.

[Tuuvi]

I disagree too, but I am not American, so i only see Teaparty Propaganda and how they act infront of television and youtube. Then I see people like Sarah Palin are spearheading the campaign, and Michele Bachman, who also doesn't know anything about anything, I don't think I could trust them to pick up my groceries from the supermarket even with a shopping list and pictures of the items. It kind of gives the perception people don't exist in a plane called 'reality'.

On the otherhand, Hilary Clinton internationally comes across as some one who knows what she is doing in a political office, ideological differences aside.

Is Democrat propaganda so much more successful overseas, or things are so bad in the echo-chambers that millions of Americans have switched off their brains?

I don't identify as conservative or support the Republican Party but I do believe that conservatives aren't always as incompetent as they appear. Utah, the state that I live in is, is overwhelmingly Republican and has been ranked as one of the best managed states in the nation.

I also agree with Seamus that the media has a role in our perception of the Republican Party. I happened to be in Alaska during Troopergate and the impression I received of Sarah Palin then was different than the one I received during her Vice Presidential candidacy. She seemed more savvy and intelligent, and she was not the naive bimbo presented in the media during the 2008 presidential election.

[Ironside]

but in a hundred little things like word choice, body language, eye contact or tone of voice they (possibly unknowingly) slant their coverage (I recall a couple of posts by Euro.orgers who visited the US, saw our news programs first hand for a change, and were appalled at the bias). So yes, to some extent, you see a biased view from our media that represents our political left as rational intellectuals and our political right as ideologues and airheads. Neither Palin or Bachman is as vapid as the coverage makes them out to be, just as Obama is not the would-be Stalinist our right wing radio pundits demagogue about.

Any idea why? I mean journalists in general seems to be trending left, in the same way that the military trends right, but at least serious Swedish media tries to be neutral on the news and facts, with the bias coming in the analysis. They're of course accused of having a left wing bias on average and you can probably see a lot of bias on what news that's decided to be pushed, but during the programmes themselves, they try to be even handed.

Anyway, I suspect the echo-chamber has completely destroyed any factchecking. How many Americans do you think knows that Obama has been running most of his years with the lowest taxes in 50 years and that more than 75% of the expenses are bound up by medicare/aid, social security, interest and military?

[HoreTore]

Most tea partiers just want to go back in time.

Their problem is that the time they want to go back to never existed in the first place.

[Sarmatian]

Their problem is that the time they want to go back to never existed in the first place.

Like most self-respecting fascists.

[HoreTore]

Like most self-respecting fascists.

Well, fascism is revolutionary in nature; even though their intended modernization draws heavily on a mythical past. Mussolini's Italy wasn't an attempt to recreate the Roman Empire, even though he drew heavily on it for justification.

In many ways, the Tea Party is similar, with the difference that they do not seem to be aware of it. Their 'golden age' never existed, so what they aim for is new and revolutionary.

[Husar]

I understand all of that. My point is that believing that your Congressman is the golden idol among the monsters that inhabit Congress is a symptom of the abdication of political responsibilities. People either don't vote or they pick a side and love their Congressman for the pork they chastise others for.

None of this has anything to do with the way government is structured. It is because of people who believe that Nader is the devil for splitting the liberal vote. Voters self identify as the party they belong to. Thus an attack on the party is an attack on ones self. This perfectly sums up the temper tantrums and enabling of both Congressmen and voters alike. The duty of every citizen is to look out for the American community as a whole, this concept has been completely lost.

Hence why we have zealots like Dawg advocating for nothing less than collapse of our standard of living in order to satisfy his own conception of what the perfect life is.

Yeah, you'd think people are selfish if you didn't know they're all good christians.

[Kadagar_AV]

America is such a big country that there are no truly acceptable answers to those questions.

Really? America is a country these days

[ICantSpellDawg]

You guys are all just angry and you don't know where to aim your anger, so you aim it at the GOP. What do you think would happen to your paychecks if the GOP just ceased to exist? Utopia would ensue? I say let's call your bluff and eliminate the GOP. The imaginary world that you live in where the GOP makes it impossible to govern when you control the other House, the executive and nearly every bureaucrat is on your side. It is not incumbent on the party that is against government to just cave to your statist whims. We win when the government fails to expand.

Long story short - spending increases vs what we take in seem to be unstoppable. You know this is the case and it leads directly to increased government consumption of your assets and income. We want major cuts to Federal programs, but all we get are major increases to Federal programs. People tell you that every program is absolutely essential for you to just continue living your life. You must know that this is BS. We can create new programs and allow the government to expand, but in your own interest you must know that there are places that we can seriously cut back.

Why are people villains for demanding accounting transparency and a walk back of nonessential services? A re-definition of what an "essential service" is. Should the government just continue expanding, exponentially and raising it's take of your take, all while showing you more and more contempt in its regulations and law? What do you think is supposed to happen? But you have found a villain to make yourselves feel better while you are swindled. If it wasn't so awful it would be humorous.

The US government is no longer a protector of your rights. It is a guardian of a kaleidoscope of entrenched interest which have nothing to do with you as an individual. It no longer deserves your loyalty even though the law demands it. The founding fathers were a bunch of seditionists who rebelled against a government which held them in contempt. We can do better and times are changing.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I have a long question.

You guys can't accuse me of being a racist, because I believe that all people should be given a blank slate to prove themselves and I reject the idea that some hold themselves above others because of their upbringing or backgrounds.

You can't call me a fascist because I want to diminish the role and power of government over the lives of individuals. I am a soft on crime Republican.

I want to reform the immigration system to make it easier to migrate to the United States and exist as a human being with protected rights.

I don't reject the idea that the health system is broken and needed to be fixed and that the ACA is probably better than single payer for the purposes of individual liberty.

What are you guys accusing me of being? An asshole, being crazy? I'm a moderate Republican, but you have left us no choice with the endless expansion of government. I see the next few years as the last time that we will have to keep the government out of our lives. You accuse me of being old fashioned. Old fashioned is the government controlling your life. Government involvement in the lives of individuals needs to be scaled back. It is absolutely essential. This is why I support a shutdown. It is better to pay Federal employees for doing nothing than to allow them to continue boring a whole into the American life.

Carrying a credit balance for the US government is probably a good thing, even though for individuals it is not. At this point, though, we have crossed the Rubicon into very bad territory. The hostage takers are those who say that we have come to far with our financial hemorrhage to turn back. That we must continue spending beyond our ability to pay back due to how far we come and that anything short of a boost to spending will tank the economy and kill Americans. This is the hostage situation!