Will the House Funding Bill Ignite a Government Shutdown?

[Office_Shredder]

Downtown Gettysburg (indeed, the town of Gettysburg in general, apart from the national park facilities) is not a closed space.

Yes, they held it in a non-closed space because the space they originally were going to hold it in was closed.

 

[russ_watters]

FoxNews (yes) has a good article on the unnecessary pain the Obama Administration is inflicting with the shutdown: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ent-shut-down-that-saved-practically-nothing/

It includes the story of a man fined $100 by National Parks police for jogging through Valley Forge. The park includes museums and other facilities which are, of course, closed, but the park itself is just a big open field and includes state roads going through it. He parked his car, went for a run, and found two national parks police waiting for him with a ticket. It would have been cheaper to furlough the police and let people just use the big open field as they wish.

Also included are government associated organizations that are not publicly funded but are still being forced to shut down!

There are other similar stories of obstruction of public facilities that seem to serve no purpose but to create unnecessary pain while costing money instead of saving it.

And CNN has a good Op Ed from Gingrich about his shock at the poll numbers. I was shocked too: given the harsh rhetoric the media has adopted in-line with the Obama administration, I wrongly assumed the public would fall for it like they did when it happened to Gingrich. Surprisingly, no. Yes, Republicans are being blamed more than Democrats, but not by anywhere close to as wide a margin, despite this shutdown being less useful (IMO) than Gingrich's. http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/08/opinion/gingrich-poll-shutdown-blame/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

 

[Vanadium 50]

How much is "some non-federal funding"?

Your 10% number sounds plausible. It surely varies by Lab, as the labs have different missions and clients.

When working with a lab, the costs have two parts: a base cost - the cost of people, equipment, etc. - and "indirects", which go towards operating and managing the laboratory. The indirect rate is smallest for the Department of Energy, larger for other government agencies, and larger still for Work for Others. So this 10% or whatever provides a larger piece of the operations pie that it might appear.

The Lab Director has discretion, in principle, to keep the web sites current. However, when your 90% customer "requests" that the web sites be shut down, it's a good idea to listen to that customer.

 

[OmCheeto]

Your 10% number sounds plausible. It surely varies by Lab, as the labs have different missions and clients.

When working with a lab, the costs have two parts: a base cost - the cost of people, equipment, etc. - and "indirects", which go towards operating and managing the laboratory. The indirect rate is smallest for the Department of Energy, larger for other government agencies, and larger still for Work for Others. So this 10% or whatever provides a larger piece of the operations pie that it might appear.

The Lab Director has discretion, in principle, to keep the web sites current. However, when your 90% customer "requests" that the web sites be shut down, it's a good idea to listen to that customer.

I see the forced web shutdowns as a message. "This is what you will have if you decide to to go through with your idea of shrinking and drowning the government".

Not sure if anyone has seen the irony in that we are discussing all of this on a media made possible by the government.

It's also interesting to see how this is starting to affect the people around me. One of my cousin's, a field biologist, spent a summer in Antarctica at the McMurdo Station. His Facebook page is all atwitter with the fact that all Antarctic research facilities may be shut down for the entire year.

I'm always joking with people, asking them to guess how many days I have left until I retire. Yesterday, the young lady I asked, said she may be leaving before I do. She does biomedical research, funded by NIH grants.

Of course, being an armchair scientist, watching what happens when you throw a shoe into scientific machinery, makes me cringe.

The National Science Foundation will not make payments to scientists during the shutdown. The NSF will not accept reports from grantees and will not respond to inquiries.

The National Radio Astronomy Observatory, which is funded by the NSF, shut down three radio telescopes: the Green Bank Telescope in West Virginia, the Very Large Array in New Mexico and the Very Long Baseline Array which stretches from Hawaii to the US Virgin Islands. These telescopes are used by thousands of astronomers. One radio astronomer told the journal Science that a shutdown could render useless a yearlong project to trace the shape of the Milky Way which had already cost $500,000. 385 NRAO employees were furloughed.

The United States Antarctic Program announced that it will move its three research stations to "caretaker" status, meaning that "all field and research activities not essential to human safety and preservation of property will be suspended". Most work at Antarctica is done between the months of October and February, when the region experiences summer. Because of the logistical difficulties involved in working in Antarctica, the shutdown may result in the cancellation of all American research in Antarctica for the entire 2013-2014 season. Scientists at McMurdo Station, Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station, and Palmer Station study topics such as biology, astrophysics and climate change.

 

[Evo]

Well, not everything is shut down, some things have been deemed ESSENTIAL!

ESSENTIAL: The gym for members of the House of Representatives.

The House gym reserved exclusively for lawmakers remains open during the shutdown. It features a swimming pool, basketball courts, a sauna and steam room. "This job is very stressful and if you don't have a place to vent, you are going to go crazy and that's why I've used it all these years,” said Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), who has been a user since 1973. While there's no towel service available during these tough times, taxpayers are still paying for maintenance and cleaning. The House gym for staff members, however, is closed.

OMG, NO TOWELS?

ESSENTIAL: Every single member of Congress.

Want the shutdown to end? Don't pay these idiots.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/09/congress-government-shutdown_n_4065432.html

 

[Pythagorean]

They are some very clever idiots.

Many of them are rejecting their pay, though:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...rs-will-refuse-their-pay-during-the-shutdown/

 

[Evo]

They are some very clever idiots.

Many of them are rejecting their pay, though:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...rs-will-refuse-their-pay-during-the-shutdown/

I want the list of the phonies that are just "holding in escrow", meaning that they aren't giving up anything, they will collect all back pay as soon as the shutdown is over.

 

[Office_Shredder]

The link calls out that some lawmakers are holding their pay in escrow, while others are refusing pay or donating, and then goes on to say that the list is only of lawmakers who are refusing pay or donating, so I assume that means none of them are just holding their pay in escrow.

 

[Evo]

The link calls out that some lawmakers are holding their pay in escrow, while others are refusing pay or donating, and then goes on to say that the list is only of lawmakers who are refusing pay or donating, so I assume that means none of them are just holding their pay in escrow.

No, if you read what the individuals are doing, those listed include those that are having their pay withheld during the shutdown, they will get it after the shutdown ceases (according to law), they have to receive the money, they can then donate, return or keep it.

What you are referring to is this comment

Note: Below this list will be members of Congress who previously said they were donating or refusing the shutdown pay.

But if you look at the names on the list you will see that some are just having their pay held, but will receive it after the shutdown (oh deception!)

But donating a portion of one congressional salary during the shutdown may not be as simple and straightforward as it sounds. Even if a lawmaker decided to refuse his or her pay, the compensation is considered mandatory spending in the federal budget, and the Constitution requires that House and Senate lawmakers’ pay cannot be altered until the start of a new term.

So lawmakers will face a choice: They can continue receiving their pay and then write checks to the U.S. Treasury or their favorite charity, or they can opt to have their pay withheld and placed in escrow for the duration of the shutdown. If the shutdown continues beyond the current two-week pay period, House and Senate administrative offices will hold on to the funds and distribute them after the impasse, leaving it up to the lawmaker to decide what to do.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/...ed-warrior-project-house-and-senate-lawmakers

 

[russ_watters]

I want the list of the phonies that are just "holding in escrow", meaning that they aren't giving up anything, they will collect all back pay as soon as the shutdown is over.

Isn't that just like all the furloughed government workers?

 

[Evo]

Isn't that just like all the furloughed government workers?

The furloughed workers don't have a choice. A politician that plans to collect money for themselves after the shutdown should not be listed the same as the ones that plan to give it to charity. IMO. I would like to know who's keeping the money and who is not, since they're making a list.

 

[edward]

The furloughed workers don't have a choice. A politician that plans to collect money for themselves after the shutdown should not be listed the same as the ones that plan to give it to charity. IMO. I would like to know who's keeping the money and who is not, since they're making a list.

Here is a good link + a video on the pay issue. On page two there is a link to the 10 poorest congressmen.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...in-Congress-see-fit-to-donate-their-pay-video

 

[OmCheeto]

The furloughed workers don't have a choice. A politician that plans to collect money for themselves after the shutdown should not be listed the same as the ones that plan to give it to charity. IMO. I would like to know who's keeping the money and who is not, since they're making a list.

Hey! It's not like they are all millionaires. Some of them are less than poor.

10 'Poorest' Members of Congress Owe Big

http://cdn.rollcall.com/media/newspics/318/valadao091913.jpg
Valadao is the “poorest” member of Congress​

$4,100,000.00 in debt.

He might need his paycheck.

Though, to be honest, it doesn't look like he's starving.

SCREEEETCH!

I just asked my new bartender if he knew anybody that this was affecting. He said; "Me."

He is in the National Guard. He did not get his last paycheck.

anyways, the WiFi here keeps going up and down, and the 50 Richest Members of Congress: The Wealth Keeps Growing link intrigues me.

the median net worth of the 50 richest [congressmen] rising more than 17 percent

But I will have to wait until I get a reliable internet connection before I push the "Submit Reply" button.

I know how the world is.

 

[Office_Shredder]

The median net worth of the 50 richest congressman is just the average of the net worths of the 25th and 26th richest congressman. If you look at their actual list only a few of them are making gains similar to that, and I think that statistic is a bit misleading. Anytime a new very wealthy person joins Congress that number goes up for no reason (and there are 7 new people on that list), if you look at the 25th person on that list excluding the new-comers, and compare his net worth to the actual 25th's net worth, just the new members of congress should have pushed up the median by 27%. Obviously some rich people could have dropped out of Congress as well, but the upshot is that that number doesn't seem to be very meaningful to me.

 

[Evo]

Wait, how is this guy in office??

2. Alcee L. Hastings: -$2.23 million

A lawyer and former federal judge, Hastings is still paying off legal fees of more than $2 million that he incurred in a trial on charges of bribery while he was serving on a U.S. district court. The Florida Democrat was acquitted of the charges in 1983, but a federal panel later concluded he had lied and fabricated evidence.

From the CS Monitor link.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Wait, how is this guy in office?

It's worse than that. He was impeached and convicted by the Senate in 1989, and then removed from office.

The more interesting question is why his party has him in a leadership position (he's a whip).

 

[lisab]

Wait, how is this guy in office??

From the CS Monitor link.

Hint: it's Florida .

 

[OmCheeto]

It's worse than that. He was impeached and convicted by the Senate in 1989, and then removed from office.

The more interesting question is why his party has him in a leadership position (he's a whip).

It's no wonder the aliens don't come and visit...

 

[BobG]

They are some very clever idiots.

Many of them are rejecting their pay, though:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...rs-will-refuse-their-pay-during-the-shutdown/

I'm thinking finding a way to not take their pay without complicating their taxes will be difficult. Per the Constitution, the government is going to pay them, so it's not like they can just not get paid.

The story's different for Congressional staffers, though. We may only have 535 Congressmen, but we have around 14,000 Congressional staffers. Average staff in the House is 14, average staff in the Senate is 34, plus there's staff for each Committee, etc. It's up to each Congressman how many of his staff are deemed "essential" and keep working during the furlough. Most Congressmen aren't very enthusiastic about discussing how many of their staff were furloughed and how many were kept on.

It's not like life isn't hard enough for Congressional staffers. While there's some good paying jobs, most don't make as much as they could elsewhere. Can't help noticing that the health benefits for Congressional staffers are the best benefit of being a Congressional staffer. Those health benefits look to be collateral damage in the attack on the ACA.

 

[Astronuc]

Republicans consider short-term U.S. debt ceiling increase
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/10/us-usa-fiscal-idUSBRE98N11220131010

Some folks are trying to make it work.

 

[BobG]

One thing this shutdown battle illustrates is the difference between reaching a consensus decision and reaching a majority decision.

A consensus decision means a decision that everyone could at least accept, even if they didn't like it that much.

A majority decision means you had enough votes to enact a decision even if it was completely unacceptable to a large percentage of the group.

Congress usually works on a consensus type process, which is why there's so many ways a minority can throw a wrench into the works and stop the majority from enacting something the minority finds completely unacceptable.

There was never a consensus on how to reform health care. Even when it was passed, a majority of Americans opposed it (CNN health care reform poll). You can legitimately argue that the "opposed" number is misleading, since a significant number of those opposed were opposed because the ACA didn't go far enough, but you can't argue that America ever reached a consensus on how to handle health care reform.

More significant is the strength of the opposition. Per CBS's poll (from Polling Report, over 30% were strongly opposed even when the bill was approved. That's not at least accepting the decision, even if they don't particularly like it.

The conditions that existed in 2010 were a bit of quirk that rarely happens in Congress. One party had a large enough majority that they could ignore reaching a consensus and push through a bill that many Americans (and many members of Congress) found totally unacceptable. It's a bit of a violation of etiquette to do what Democrats did. It's also a bit naive to think that condition will last for long and they surely knew there'd be hell to pay at some point (which is why there's any etiquette at all when it comes to these things - the temptation to ignore consensus and go to majority rule when you can is hard to resist).

I don't agree with shutting down government over this (in fact, I'm very strongly against it), but you can't put all of the blame for the situation that led to the shut down just on Republicans.

For the Republians in this fight - Right goal, but wrong tactic.

 

[Office_Shredder]

I'm thinking finding a way to not take their pay without complicating their taxes will be difficult. Per the Constitution, the government is going to pay them, so it's not like they can just not get paid.

They can donate their paycheck to charity, or simply send it back to the Bureau of Public Debt, who will allegedly use it to pay off some bonds. These are not tax complicating schemes, they are tax deductible but if the congressman is smart enough to be a congressman it should be easy enough for him to file for the deduction, or to not if that's too hard (assuming his taxes are being held at the right rate, his paycheck was lightened by the amount of taxes he owed on that money, and if he adds that donation in as a deduction he's cheating the 'refusing the paycheck' system by getting some back! ) Also, if it's too hard then he should just quit because there's no way he's qualified to help run the country.

 

[D H]

For the Republians in this fight - Right goal, but wrong tactic.

I don't think it is even the right goal. I also think that Ted Cruz' reading of Green Eggs and Ham was very telling. The Republicans are afraid that, just as was the case with that fictional dish of green eggs and ham, that the public will find out that those ACA green eggs and ham are actually quite tasty once the public tastes them.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Even when it was passed, a majority of Americans opposed it (CNN health care reform poll). You can legitimately argue that the "opposed" number is misleading, since a significant number of those opposed were opposed because the ACA didn't go far enough

That's a very interesting point. Are there any polls that use more intelligent questioning such as:

- The system should remain the same
- The system should be reformed by ACA
- The system should be reformed further than ACA

Were I American I suppose I would come under opposed on the basis of that ACA is not good enough but that wouldn't mean I'd agree with the status quo which is what simple poles would suggest.

 

[Pythagorean]

I kind of view ACA, on one corner, as something that forces us to accept the business of one particular sector... a particularly disfavored sector, insurance: a very clever business model, but also kind of a predatory business. Of course that's not the complete story and insurance has its merits, but I think it's a legitimate criticism.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I kind of view ACA, on one corner, as something that forces us to accept the business of one particular sector... a particularly disfavored sector, insurance: a very clever business model, but also kind of a predatory business. Of course that's not the complete story and insurance has its merits, but I think it's a legitimate criticism.

I would agree. Mandatory insurance with no automatic government insurance seems like a flawed model. Not that it won't work (we'll have to see) but AFAIK the only other country that practices this type of system is Switzerland. There are many other countries with demonstrable universal healthcare systems, from an outside perspective it seems odd that one of these wasn't just adopted.

 

[OmCheeto]

This has gone too far...

Shutdown means no new beer from craft brewers

 

[BobG]

That's a very interesting point. Are there any polls that use more intelligent questioning such as:

- The system should remain the same
- The system should be reformed by ACA
- The system should be reformed further than ACA

Were I American I suppose I would come under opposed on the basis of that ACA is not good enough but that wouldn't mean I'd agree with the status quo which is what simple poles would suggest.

Or ... The system should be reformed by a completely different method than the ACA.

For example, pass a law that tests requested by a doctor be performed by an outside agency unaffiliated with the doctor (very similar to the prohibition against a doctor both prescribing and selling a drug to his patients). Doctors that buy new equipment suddenly have a drastic increase in the number of patients that require that test (MRI, for example). And then the doctor simply charges the patient's insurance company for the test and both the patient and the doctor are happy.

That, in itself, probably wouldn't have a drastic impact on overall medical costs, but it is one example where government could focus on reducing health costs instead of just redistributing the current costs.

 

[Astronuc]

NRC forced to shut down
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_NRC_forced_to_shut_down_1010131.html
10 October 2013

America's budgetary crisis has hit the country's nuclear safety regulator, which will cease non-essential work from today until its industry-collected funding is allowed to flow from federal budgets.

Various DOE labs are starting shutdown processes.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Tuesday during the Q&A portion of his press conference the President asked for at least a temporary extension in the debt ceiling.
Wednesday the House offered a six week extension.
Today the President declined that offer.
This will not end soon.

 

[Pythagorean]

So how legitimate is the claim that Koch brothers contributed to the government shutdown? There is a site that even use the verb "orchestrated":

http://www.commondreams.org/further/2013/10/10-0

But I can see how the issue might be more complex than that.

 

[OmCheeto]

I was talking to another acquaintance at work today. He said he cannot publish his paper because the NIST is down.

I didn't know science was so bureaucratic.

I've decided that I don't want to be a scientist...

 

[Vanadium 50]

Science is not so bureaucratic. Just its funding.

 

[edward]

A Federal Budget Crisis Months in the Planning.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/u...nths-in-the-planning.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Shall we say premeditated budget crisis or intentional budget crisis? A lot of organizations were involved. It does appear that defunding Obama care was the motive.

 

[SteamKing]

Government shutdown, with extra spite thrown in at no additional charge, courtesy of the White House.