Mary Katherine Ham:
In an impressive display of Beltway mentality, the Washington Post invited federal workers to sing the blues about their possible furloughs, should the government shut down. These federal workers already have better pay and benefits than most of the taxpayers funding their jobs, and in the event of a government shutdown, those taxpayers come to find that much of what they’ve been funding is “nonessential,” according to the very government that employs these multitudes. But it hurts to be told you’re “nonessential,” and the Washington Post allows a place to vent. Some of those who contributed are officially “essential” and should be— they perform “essential activities to the extent that they protect life and property,” according to the Office of Management and Budget.
Others should probably stay quiet, lest loudly proclaiming their job descriptions makes taxpayers think, “Wait, what are we paying you for?” Like this guy:
And, lo, it came to pass that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission environmental engineers were furloughed, and from that day forth, we were forced to dine on raw ox tails and dried lentils before we ventured out to light the tiki torches that ward off bands of marauding coyotes and looters but stand as a bleak reminder of better times, when we knew how to use fire to cook meat. But that was before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission environmental engineers were furloughed for 3-7 days, my child.
Most of the political danger of a government shut down, unfortunately, likely falls on Republicans. It’s not fair that part of the reason for that is a media happy to blame them and them alone, as Mark Halperin pointed out, but it’s the truth and one we must recognize as we’re gearing up to fight a message battle on that front. But there is danger for Democrats and liberals, too, just as there was with sequestration. A shutdown necessarily highlights many jobs taxpayers had no idea they were funding. Most of the pain from a shutdown falls within the Beltway, where as I mentioned, salaries are higher and the economy more prosperous than the rest of the country thanks to taxpayer money siphoned from them to serve the ruling and contractor class. And, in the end, it may be that people’s personal experiences don’t live up to the sky-is-falling expectations set by the media and Democrats. That’s what happened with sequestration, and it’s why the Continuing Resolution’s spending levels being set at sequestration level is a virtually controversy-free part of this fight. The fact that America doesn’t fall apart when small parts of the federal government are dismantled is a good thing, for the country in general, and for making conservative arguments. It’s less likely that a shutdown redounds to conservative benefit on this front than sequestration did but it’s worth pondering if we end up in this message battle.
If no adverse consequences will result from a federal shutdown, I suppose republicans have no reason to fear any negative political repercussions for having brought one about.
The employees of thousands of private sector contractors providing services to the federal government will be suddenly out of work as well.
Go ahead. Do it. I’m curious what no adverse consequences will look like.
@Greg:
The sky is falling we were told. If sequester happens, the nation will cease to function, we were told. Sequestration would cause planes to fall out of the skies, we were told.
Sequestration came, and stayed. No planes fell out of the skies. Actually, Americans didn’t really notice the dreaded sequestration like we were promised they would.
What if someone throws a government shut down and no one notices?
If anyone is curious about what would be affected and what wouldn’t, USA Today offered this: 66 questions and answers about the government shutdown
Oddly enough, one thing that would hardly be affected at all is Obamacare. (Refer to questions 32 and 33.)
The answers to questions 64, 65, and 66 might also be of interest.
@retire05:
The House want’s to fund all of the Federal government (EVERYTHING) except for Obamacare. So, if the Senate and President refuse to allow funding of the government unless Obamacare is included, it is they who are forcing it to shut down. The Senate and President refuse to even negotiate, much less compromise, which makes them now the petty party of “No government without Obamacare”.
The writers of the Constitution never intended that a minority party should be able to shut down the federal government just because they don’t like a particular item of legislation that has been passed by both houses of Congress, has been properly signed into law by the President of the United States, and has then been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. They didn’t intend the budget process to be a mechanism whereby a minority party could overrule the legislative process, the judicial process, and the Executive Branch’s execution of the law.
To think such a mechanism was intended is absurd, as it essentially nullifies the entire Constitutional process of U.S. government.
There will be no compromise from the White House on this point. No responsible president should concede to the lunacy that a demand for the non-legislative, non-judicial overturning of duly passed legislation represents. To do so would set a precedent that would eventually destroy our entire Constitutional system of government.
The GOP leadership was completely crazy to allow themselves to be coerced by the far right into taking such an untenable position. The resultant situation is that the far right is about to destroy the GOP, and there’s nothing obvious that the President could offer that would represent a mutually beneficial way out of the dilemma.
The only thing crashing from ”the government,” is the ObamaCare system.
Obama said everything would be fine …..up until today when he admitted there are ”glitches, MONTHS of glitches.”
LOL!
Our roads are still being worked on.
(that’s state and local, btw)
Our police/fire are still at the ready.
(that’s state and local, too)
All the essential federal jobs are still going.
That includes Obama’s THREE chefs!
He has the Bush holdover chef, his personal chef (and golfing partner/drug supplier) as well as his personal pastry chef.
But the guy who opens the public gate so people can walk on the National Mall? He didn’t show up.
And The Statue of Liberty Will Be Immediately Closed
Quietly, today, Obama showed who he is friends with: he dumped the US ban on aiding regimes which use CHILD SOLDIERS!
Last night, when it might have made a difference, Dems refused to sign on a deal to fund the gov’t while getting rid of the Medical Device Tax….today, those same Dems say, they are willing to dump that tax!
That’s nice.
But there’s still a huge tax on medical research.
So, Merck to Fire 8,500 in the USA in Strategy Overhaul That Shifts R&D Overseas.
Obama’s buddies in Congress like to say ObamaCare is ”the law.” As if it is sacrosanct.
Unchangeable.
But 19 revisions in ObamaCare have been made already.
Some of them repeatedly allowed for dipping into provisions of Obamacare to use money for other spending!!!
5 delays have been declared by Obama alone!
The effective tax rate on married couples increases over 1 MILLION percent for earning $1 more than a certain level.
As it said in Animal Farm, ”some animals are more equal than other animals.
@Greg:
That’s right because any duly passed legislation is good. Such as prohibition, segregation and of course the years before women had the right to vote. Now we know where you’d come down on all of these.
The Abortion Shutdown
When did it take place? Sept. 30 to Oct. 13, 1977
How long did it last? 12 days
Who was president? Jimmy Carter DEMOCRAT
Who controlled the Senate? DEMOCRATS, 59-41; Robert Byrd was majority leader
Who controlled the House? DEMOCRATS, 292-143; Tip O’Neill was speaker
Why did it happen?
The House insisted on continuing the ban on using Medicaid dollars to pay for abortions except in cases where the life of the mother was at stake.
The Senate wanted to loosen this to include allowances for abortions in the case of rape or incest or when the mother’s health was in danger.
Gee, who knew?
DEMOCRATS so vehemently disagreed about abortion that they, and they alone, shut down the Federal Government for 12 days!
Was there some sort of pogram against Democrats who weren’t 100% pro-abortion any time, any place for any reason?
No Democrats in power think outside that box today.
@Greg:
The writers of the Constitution never intended for a President to unilaterally rewrite laws after they were passed. Nor did they intend for a President to go beyond the powers and limitations of the office that they placed within the Constitution.
Wrong Greg, the Founders supported the rights of the minority party. Which the Democrats eschew when they are in the majority. Last I checked however, the Republicans are in control of the House as an equal legislative branch whose responsibility is to decide how Federal funds should be spent. When there has been poorly crafted legislation made law, that threatens to destroy the economy, and that has been illegally altered by the President, it is their duty as the loyal opposition to use their Constitutional power of the purse to put a stop to it. The voters clearly gave the House over to the Republicans to serve as a check and balance on the Obama administration, and it is looking more likely that in 2014 they will do the same for the Senate.
Context of ‘1793: Madison: President Must Not Have Power to Declare War’
Founding Fathers Feared An Imperial President
As the closest to “The People”t it was designed by the founders in the Constitution to give the House of Representatives the Responsibility to decide how the monies shall be spent, which is why all spending and taxation legislation must originate in the House. The Senate can offer amendments and alter the bill but the House is under no compulsion to retain those changes. It is the Senate and President who are saying that it must be 100% our way, while the House has offered to compromise. As the Senate and White House wont even negotiate a compromise agreement with the House, it is their refusal that shuts down the government, not the House who continues to send forth bills that funds All of the government except for The Obamacare program. This is loyal opposition in action, something the Democrats and MSM applaud when the Democrats are in the minority.
@Greg:
The writers of the Constitution never intended the Supreme Court to rewrite legislation so it passed Constitutional muster. By declaring that the individual mandate exceeded congress’ power in the commerce clause, and rewriting it as a tax so it fell within congress’ power under taxation, Chief Justice Roberts did just that. He should have sent it back. But if he had, Obamacare would be no more.