7 ms·

I hope not too off topic, but I'm puzzled by shutdowns. Every other country I can think of has a system where if the finance is not agreed, the previous budget

I hope not too off topic, but I'm puzzled by shutdowns. Every other country I can think of has a system where if the finance is not agreed, the previous budget just continues. The budget sets the yearly amount for each department and it runs on until another budget changes how much everyone gets. Sometimes a new department gets created, sometimes something is abolished. Everyone gets their salary and services run on. Even if the finance bill is defeated, or even if they can't agree a government at all. So how is it so easy for the US to simply run out? It naively seems like something both sides would want to fix pretty quickly. Is there some unseen advantage doing it this way? From news reports it seems to be all downside. Edit: Thanks for the enlightenment!

mabbo 8y ago
They don't want to stop the harm to citizens, because then they can't blame the harm on the other guy. And since they aren't harmed by it in any way, there's no real problem with doing it.
whorleater 8y ago
The recent interpretations of the anti-deficiency act (https://www.gao.gov/legal/appropriations-law-decisions/resources https://www.gao.gov/legal/appropriations-law-decisions/resou...) means that the government can be shut down unless functions endanger "life" or "property". Congress could amend the anti-deficiency act to fund the government at previous levels, but that would remove the shutdown process as a political cudgel.
- Spoom 8y ago
  > that would remove the shutdown process as a political cudgel Which, IMHO, should absolutely be done.
  - metalliqaz 8y ago
    Our current government is holding a gun to its own head in an attempt to negotiate. It's children vs adults and the children have all the power. What "should" be done is unlikely to happen. :(
- benj111 8y ago
  I came to ask the same question as the parent. This is an answer, but what are the politics of it? Eg you could make an argument that government only maintains things (ie property and life) for the public good, therefore all state employees are required lest they endanger life and property. You could certainly make the case that air traffic controllers are essential to life. Try landing planes at a busy airport without them.
  - whorleater 8y ago
    Air traffic controllers are essential to life, which is why they are asked to go to work currently. Not getting paid is a different question entirely.
    - benj111 8y ago
      Oh ok, I understood your link to mean payment was allowed where essential. Aren't some people getting paid? aren't they deemed essential?!? Am I looking for sense where there isn't any?!
      - whorleater 8y ago
        There are multiple layers in this shutdown: 1. This is a "partial government shutdown", so only some agencies (homeland security, state, SEC, etc) are affected. Some agencies like the Department of Defense are not affected and funded at previous levels. And 2. There are different levels of "federal workers": - "Essential" employees: government workers whose job are deemed to endanger "life" or "property", so they are working without pay and told to report to work. These people will (very likely receive back pay once the shutdown ends) - "Nonessential" government employees: people who are not currently working and not receiving paychecks. These people will also most likely receive backpay once the shutdown ends. - Federal contractors: janitors, drivers, caterers, temporary staff, part time staff, paid interns, etc are not currently working and will most likely not receive backpay once the shutdown ends. Note that with very few exceptions (like congressmen/congresswomen/senators, etc) most people in the federal government who are affected by the shutdown are not getting paid currently at all, even if they are told to show up to work.
lazyant 8y ago
In Canada it triggers a new election
- mmastrac 8y ago
  I had to refresh my memory on how this works up here, but generally our parliamentary system is designed to refresh itself when it becomes dysfunctional: https://globalnews.ca/news/3568037/vote-of-no-confidence-canada/ https://globalnews.ca/news/3568037/vote-of-no-confidence-can... I don't know how it might work in the American system with the "balance of powers" or if it might be abused but generally our unstable minority governments resolve to a more stable majority after a few election calls.
  - SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
    > unstable minority governments resolve to a more stable majority after a few election calls. And before that time you get parties that have to work together to keep things moving, forcing compromise, and giving the less represented groups more power for a time.
- JohnJamesRambo 8y ago
  Can we get this please? I can think of a really great way to stop this shutdown by removal of one person in particular.
  - tomschlick 8y ago
    Honestly the last thing I want when we reach a budget impasse is for a full roster of rookie congressmen managing it. Thats ripe for abuse and you'd be getting rid of a lot of well seasoned people who know how to work around red tape to get things done and make deals.
    - zentiggr 8y ago
      For a well meant opposing viewpoint, flushing longer term congresspeople could mean the breaking of many lobbyist ties, shadow coalitions, and other impediments to reasonable progress. I've proposed before that campaign contribution amounts be publicized, and let people vote out the ones who have been too heavily 'bought'.
pjc50 8y ago
"Antideficiency Act", apparently. The practical politics of it is that there is one party that's become ideologically opposed to all non-military Federal spending. From their point of view the automatic shutdown is a feature.
dragontamer 8y ago
> Every other country I can think of has a system where if the finance is not agreed, the previous budget just continues That's called a continuing resolution. And in the USA, Trump defeated it December 2018. They don't want a continuing resolution, so it doesn't happen. Its about that simple. Lawmakers can write the law however they want. Why would the Republicans decide to shoot down the CR this time? Politics. To be fair: Democrats filibustered the CR in 2018 as well, which led to a short shutdown earlier in the year.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  Yeah. You've got short-sighted "warriors" on both sides, trying to score cheap political points while the country burns (mostly figuratively, so far). Can states do recall elections? Because maybe that's the answer. If all 50 states held recall elections for all Senators and Representatives, that might concentrate minds in DC a bit...
  - dragontamer 8y ago
    It doesn't matter how bad the individual politicians are. There's one side that is clearly in the right. There is only ONE side which is pushing for a clean continuing resolution, to end the shutdown. The other side is asking for concessions before they end the shutdown. Obviously politicians are opportunistic scumbags. That's why we elect them to represent our districts, so that they return more money to our district. That's the design of the system. You have to look beyond that and focus on which side is actually pushing the correct morals (which changes from debate to debate). It is clear which side is pushing to end the shutdown with no gains to either side, and it is clear which side is asking for a $5.7 Billion Wall before the shutdown ends. ---------- Politicians will be scumbags for now, and probably for the future. Its our job as citizens to form opinions about their behavior. > Can states do recall elections? Because maybe that's the answer. If all 50 states held recall elections for all Senators and Representatives, that might concentrate minds in DC a bit... We literally just had an election like 4 months ago. The new Congress literally just entered DC this month. Every House Member was up for re-election. This is what the country voted for. Face the facts, this is Democracy at work.
chewbacha 8y ago
I believe (and I hope someone corrects me if I'm wrong) but the Anti-Deficiency act [0] is what is causing most of the issues. It specifically forbades going over the budget allocated by congress and has ramifications if it does. In general, the shutdown affects mostly non-essential federal workers, but part of that is their pay, so the offices that pay the necessary workers are not issuing checks... But, let's be clear, this isn't the government running out of money, it's the government not agreeing on how to spend the money it has. It's actually all bureaucracy and generally the budget bills are mostly simple continuances of the former... however, in recent years, this has become a game of chicken with legislatures. They are using federal pay as a pawn in negotiations to get their pet projects passed. In this particular case, instead of going the normal legislative route of passing a bill to allocate funds for the "wall" trump has both inflicted harm on federal workers and DACA recipients in order to coerce the legislative body to fund 5.7 billion in the wall. How did he do this? He first rescinded protections for a group of people and then vetoed a normal budget bill. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antideficiency_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antideficiency_Act
Traster 8y ago
It absolutely is easy for the US to fix. In fact I would go so far as to say the only way for this to occur is a concerted effort of bullshit over decades. Firstly, shutdowns didn't used to occur, it used to be that agencies would just operate as usual on the assumption that if nothing new were passed then the previous budget should stay in place. Then the AG under Carter decided to imaginatively re-interpret the existing laws (read: Couldn't actually get legislation passed to implement this) to say that anything not specifically funded by congress is defunded (except for whatever the president happens to consider expedient at the time like the police force and the army, except not all of the army, like the coast guard because reasons). THEN rather than Congress passing legislation to say "If nothing else just always stay at past funding levels" Congress instead decided this was a great political tool to whack each other of the head with to negotiate new budgets. At any point the government could just re-open. The reason shut downs happen is because both the Republicans and Democrats think it's in their favour politically for a shutdown to exist. In this case: Trump thinks he can make the case that we need funding for a border wall (despite controlling all branches of government for part of this shutdown) and that democrats will fold because they don't like dysfunction. Democrats think both that: they can't fold on the border wall because it legitimizes the Republicans using the shutdown to leverage whatever they want, and the border wall is unpopular so a longer shutdown just damages trump more and more. The only way this resolves is for one group to become so unpopular they fold, or for Trump to shred the constitution and spend the money despite not having the authority (the so called 'State of Emergency' powers)
awinder 8y ago
Largely the US worked this way (there were funding lapses before, but people still worked & were paid), but Jimmy Carter in his infinite wisdom had his attorney general issue guidance that in times of funding lapses, no salaries could be paid. He was tired of some prior shutdowns during his administration and wanted to bring some pain into the picture to force republicans & democrats to sign funding bills & make compromises. Mark Warner & Tim Kaine are pushing an act that would institute that continuing resolution behavior, appropriately called the Stop STUPIDITY Act https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sen-mark-warner-introduces-stop-stupidity-act-aimed-at-preventing-future-shutdowns/2019/01/22/2bafc150-1e82-11e9-8e21-59a09ff1e2a1_story.html?utm_term=.f07a2d917450 https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sen-mark-warner-intr... One reason that this happens is that it's effectively designed to happen at this point. In times of split government its effectively impossible to pass legislation, so this is the easiest hostage to take in order to try to extract something from the other side.
sixothree 8y ago
It gets even better because we have the fights over budgeting of the money. But when it comes time to actually pay for the things that were budgeted we get to have the same fight again. This is so broken. The terrorists have taken over our government.
Macha 8y ago
My understanding as an outsider is that I think the problem is with the debt ceiling. Legally the president (who proposes the budget) needs approval from Congress to borrow beyond the debt ceiling. The US government has for quite some time run a budget deficit, so the only budget that can apply would be a budget with significant cuts in government spending. As such, even keeping the existing budget ticking would exceed the debt ceiling. To supporters of one of the parties, this is the point. They want the government to run a balanced budget and this is a way of holding it to account. This is also why the debt ceiling can not be removed or extended enough to not become an annual issue. To both parties, this is a useful tool to hold over an opposing president. Currently, if one party controls Congress and it is not the president, they still don't have too many options short of impeachment to reign a president in. Additionally, a congress vote is not enough here, the president needs to sign it in, which is how Trump is able to use the mechanism to demand his wall gets funded here. On the other hand, in most Westminster inspired systems, failure to pass a budget triggers a new election. And the executive power to not sign in a bill usually has much more strings attached. So this deadlock cannot occur.
- mempko 8y ago
  The federal government must run a deficit. Balancing the budget would be a disaster for the economy. Watch this short video https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LxJW7hl8oqM https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LxJW7hl8oqM
  - Macha 8y ago
    Just to be clear, I agree with you. I was just trying to present their argument in as unbiased a manner as I could
- VideriQuamEsse 8y ago
  > I think the problem is with the debt ceiling. While the debt ceiling issue is also frequently in the news, that is not what's going on here. In this case, the government has the money, they're just not allowed to spend anything. In the US, unlike many other democracies, budgets expire. So in order for the government to continue functioning normally, the legislative branch has to pass a new budget bill before the previous one expires, which did not happen in this case.
dalbasal 8y ago
Most democracies run a parliamentary system, where the head of government has to have the support of parliament. There's no separation between government/executive from parliament. The point being that if a prime minister can't reach an agreement with parliament on some core issue (like annual budgets), they cease being the PM. Usually this means a new election. The US's checks and balances means that parliament and government can be in opposition to eachother, and prevent eachother from doing what they want. The president/government can veto legislation and parliament can de-fund government. This current manifestation is an odd one because the President is de-funding government, which is de-funding his own stuff. This is because the convention of "shutdown" already existed.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  Well don't look too hard at the UK right now. :) We have a government and PM that is effectively stuck there (thanks to the coalition's broken Fixed Term Parliaments Act) but unable to bring legislation through. They even lost a vote on the last finance bill, and the huge Brexit defeat. Either would normally have brought the government down. Belgium famously managed with no government for well over a year, without apparently making big decisions like finance or defence changes.
timdellinger 8y ago
relevant explainer video: https://youtu.be/KIbkoop4AYE https://youtu.be/KIbkoop4AYE (CGP Grey's "The Debt Limit Explained")
- matt4077 8y ago
  The debt limits is a similar, but distinct, mechanism.
peteey 8y ago
The problem may be deficit spending. Part of the budget is paid for with debt. I don't think you can auto-approve a raise in the debt ceiling.
Shivetya 8y ago
First off, the FAA should be privatized like it is in Canada and other countries, then it would not be beholden to a non customer. Second shut downs are structured as they are because Congress does not like the check and balances the Constitution tried to establish between branches of government. By making shut downs painful on the public, the employees of the government to include its soldiers, they can force a President to accept whatever budget they come up with. There is no line item veto, Congress would never dare give up that power. So it comes down to putting sufficient pressure on any Administration so they understand who is boss. They simply ran into someone who could call their game and honestly its the best result ever. We worry all the time about Administration overreach in this country with each change in whom is elected but the real overreach has always been the US Congress. The two parties do everything in their power to keep the game to themselves which means making it nigh impossible for anyone but them to change the rules.
umanwizard 8y ago
Really, every other country? Even Somalia, North Korea, or Venezuela? I find that often when people criticize the US by saying "no other country has this problem!" they are mainly thinking of parliamentary democracies in Western Europe. It's true that the US system doesn't function as well as most European countries. It functions better than most countries in the world. Countries are on a spectrum of institutional competence from roughly Venezuela to Iceland. The US is somewhere in the interior of this spectrum, and not on one of its endpoints. I'm not sure why people find this so incredibly surprising. Do people just think that because the US is wealthy and powerful, it somehow "ought to" rival Western Europe on every other index of development? That simply isn't the case -- the US is deeply dysfunctional in many ways and should be thought of in comparison with other deeply dysfunctional countries. Somebody can't "just" decide to fix its problems overnight.
- socalnate1 8y ago
  I would hope that the richest country in the world could endeavor to be better run than Somalia.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
csomar 8y ago
In my opinion, the US can afford to do that. Both because it has big control over its population; and that people are relatively wealthy and banks are happy to help. Try that in another country and you'll very likely get an instant uprising with either salaries paid or the government thrown overnight. In my country this happen with bus drivers (delayed payment of 1 day) and the drivers went on an instant strike. No pay, no work. It's that bad that for many, no payment means their life halting completely. So you can't afford it. Some people do not realize how good it is in the USA.

mabbo 8y ago

They don't want to stop the harm to citizens, because then they can't blame the harm on the other guy. And since they aren't harmed by it in any way, there's no real problem with doing it.

whorleater 8y ago

The recent interpretations of the anti-deficiency act (https://www.gao.gov/legal/appropriations-law-decisions/resources https://www.gao.gov/legal/appropriations-law-decisions/resou...) means that the government can be shut down unless functions endanger "life" or "property". Congress could amend the anti-deficiency act to fund the government at previous levels, but that would remove the shutdown process as a political cudgel.

Spoom 8y ago
> that would remove the shutdown process as a political cudgel Which, IMHO, should absolutely be done.
- metalliqaz 8y ago
  Our current government is holding a gun to its own head in an attempt to negotiate. It's children vs adults and the children have all the power. What "should" be done is unlikely to happen. :(
benj111 8y ago
I came to ask the same question as the parent. This is an answer, but what are the politics of it? Eg you could make an argument that government only maintains things (ie property and life) for the public good, therefore all state employees are required lest they endanger life and property. You could certainly make the case that air traffic controllers are essential to life. Try landing planes at a busy airport without them.
- whorleater 8y ago
  Air traffic controllers are essential to life, which is why they are asked to go to work currently. Not getting paid is a different question entirely.
  - benj111 8y ago
    Oh ok, I understood your link to mean payment was allowed where essential. Aren't some people getting paid? aren't they deemed essential?!? Am I looking for sense where there isn't any?!
    - whorleater 8y ago
      There are multiple layers in this shutdown: 1. This is a "partial government shutdown", so only some agencies (homeland security, state, SEC, etc) are affected. Some agencies like the Department of Defense are not affected and funded at previous levels. And 2. There are different levels of "federal workers": - "Essential" employees: government workers whose job are deemed to endanger "life" or "property", so they are working without pay and told to report to work. These people will (very likely receive back pay once the shutdown ends) - "Nonessential" government employees: people who are not currently working and not receiving paychecks. These people will also most likely receive backpay once the shutdown ends. - Federal contractors: janitors, drivers, caterers, temporary staff, part time staff, paid interns, etc are not currently working and will most likely not receive backpay once the shutdown ends. Note that with very few exceptions (like congressmen/congresswomen/senators, etc) most people in the federal government who are affected by the shutdown are not getting paid currently at all, even if they are told to show up to work.

lazyant 8y ago

In Canada it triggers a new election

mmastrac 8y ago
I had to refresh my memory on how this works up here, but generally our parliamentary system is designed to refresh itself when it becomes dysfunctional: https://globalnews.ca/news/3568037/vote-of-no-confidence-canada/ https://globalnews.ca/news/3568037/vote-of-no-confidence-can... I don't know how it might work in the American system with the "balance of powers" or if it might be abused but generally our unstable minority governments resolve to a more stable majority after a few election calls.
- SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
  > unstable minority governments resolve to a more stable majority after a few election calls. And before that time you get parties that have to work together to keep things moving, forcing compromise, and giving the less represented groups more power for a time.
JohnJamesRambo 8y ago
Can we get this please? I can think of a really great way to stop this shutdown by removal of one person in particular.
- tomschlick 8y ago
  Honestly the last thing I want when we reach a budget impasse is for a full roster of rookie congressmen managing it. Thats ripe for abuse and you'd be getting rid of a lot of well seasoned people who know how to work around red tape to get things done and make deals.
  - zentiggr 8y ago
    For a well meant opposing viewpoint, flushing longer term congresspeople could mean the breaking of many lobbyist ties, shadow coalitions, and other impediments to reasonable progress. I've proposed before that campaign contribution amounts be publicized, and let people vote out the ones who have been too heavily 'bought'.

pjc50 8y ago

"Antideficiency Act", apparently. The practical politics of it is that there is one party that's become ideologically opposed to all non-military Federal spending. From their point of view the automatic shutdown is a feature.

dragontamer 8y ago

> Every other country I can think of has a system where if the finance is not agreed, the previous budget just continues That's called a continuing resolution. And in the USA, Trump defeated it December 2018. They don't want a continuing resolution, so it doesn't happen. Its about that simple. Lawmakers can write the law however they want. Why would the Republicans decide to shoot down the CR this time? Politics. To be fair: Democrats filibustered the CR in 2018 as well, which led to a short shutdown earlier in the year.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago
Yeah. You've got short-sighted "warriors" on both sides, trying to score cheap political points while the country burns (mostly figuratively, so far). Can states do recall elections? Because maybe that's the answer. If all 50 states held recall elections for all Senators and Representatives, that might concentrate minds in DC a bit...
- dragontamer 8y ago
  It doesn't matter how bad the individual politicians are. There's one side that is clearly in the right. There is only ONE side which is pushing for a clean continuing resolution, to end the shutdown. The other side is asking for concessions before they end the shutdown. Obviously politicians are opportunistic scumbags. That's why we elect them to represent our districts, so that they return more money to our district. That's the design of the system. You have to look beyond that and focus on which side is actually pushing the correct morals (which changes from debate to debate). It is clear which side is pushing to end the shutdown with no gains to either side, and it is clear which side is asking for a $5.7 Billion Wall before the shutdown ends. ---------- Politicians will be scumbags for now, and probably for the future. Its our job as citizens to form opinions about their behavior. > Can states do recall elections? Because maybe that's the answer. If all 50 states held recall elections for all Senators and Representatives, that might concentrate minds in DC a bit... We literally just had an election like 4 months ago. The new Congress literally just entered DC this month. Every House Member was up for re-election. This is what the country voted for. Face the facts, this is Democracy at work.

chewbacha 8y ago

I believe (and I hope someone corrects me if I'm wrong) but the Anti-Deficiency act [0] is what is causing most of the issues. It specifically forbades going over the budget allocated by congress and has ramifications if it does. In general, the shutdown affects mostly non-essential federal workers, but part of that is their pay, so the offices that pay the necessary workers are not issuing checks... But, let's be clear, this isn't the government running out of money, it's the government not agreeing on how to spend the money it has. It's actually all bureaucracy and generally the budget bills are mostly simple continuances of the former... however, in recent years, this has become a game of chicken with legislatures. They are using federal pay as a pawn in negotiations to get their pet projects passed. In this particular case, instead of going the normal legislative route of passing a bill to allocate funds for the "wall" trump has both inflicted harm on federal workers and DACA recipients in order to coerce the legislative body to fund 5.7 billion in the wall. How did he do this? He first rescinded protections for a group of people and then vetoed a normal budget bill. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antideficiency_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antideficiency_Act

Traster 8y ago

It absolutely is easy for the US to fix. In fact I would go so far as to say the only way for this to occur is a concerted effort of bullshit over decades. Firstly, shutdowns didn't used to occur, it used to be that agencies would just operate as usual on the assumption that if nothing new were passed then the previous budget should stay in place. Then the AG under Carter decided to imaginatively re-interpret the existing laws (read: Couldn't actually get legislation passed to implement this) to say that anything not specifically funded by congress is defunded (except for whatever the president happens to consider expedient at the time like the police force and the army, except not all of the army, like the coast guard because reasons). THEN rather than Congress passing legislation to say "If nothing else just always stay at past funding levels" Congress instead decided this was a great political tool to whack each other of the head with to negotiate new budgets. At any point the government could just re-open. The reason shut downs happen is because both the Republicans and Democrats think it's in their favour politically for a shutdown to exist. In this case: Trump thinks he can make the case that we need funding for a border wall (despite controlling all branches of government for part of this shutdown) and that democrats will fold because they don't like dysfunction. Democrats think both that: they can't fold on the border wall because it legitimizes the Republicans using the shutdown to leverage whatever they want, and the border wall is unpopular so a longer shutdown just damages trump more and more. The only way this resolves is for one group to become so unpopular they fold, or for Trump to shred the constitution and spend the money despite not having the authority (the so called 'State of Emergency' powers)

awinder 8y ago

Largely the US worked this way (there were funding lapses before, but people still worked & were paid), but Jimmy Carter in his infinite wisdom had his attorney general issue guidance that in times of funding lapses, no salaries could be paid. He was tired of some prior shutdowns during his administration and wanted to bring some pain into the picture to force republicans & democrats to sign funding bills & make compromises. Mark Warner & Tim Kaine are pushing an act that would institute that continuing resolution behavior, appropriately called the Stop STUPIDITY Act https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sen-mark-warner-introduces-stop-stupidity-act-aimed-at-preventing-future-shutdowns/2019/01/22/2bafc150-1e82-11e9-8e21-59a09ff1e2a1_story.html?utm_term=.f07a2d917450 https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sen-mark-warner-intr... One reason that this happens is that it's effectively designed to happen at this point. In times of split government its effectively impossible to pass legislation, so this is the easiest hostage to take in order to try to extract something from the other side.

sixothree 8y ago

It gets even better because we have the fights over budgeting of the money. But when it comes time to actually pay for the things that were budgeted we get to have the same fight again. This is so broken. The terrorists have taken over our government.

Macha 8y ago

My understanding as an outsider is that I think the problem is with the debt ceiling. Legally the president (who proposes the budget) needs approval from Congress to borrow beyond the debt ceiling. The US government has for quite some time run a budget deficit, so the only budget that can apply would be a budget with significant cuts in government spending. As such, even keeping the existing budget ticking would exceed the debt ceiling. To supporters of one of the parties, this is the point. They want the government to run a balanced budget and this is a way of holding it to account. This is also why the debt ceiling can not be removed or extended enough to not become an annual issue. To both parties, this is a useful tool to hold over an opposing president. Currently, if one party controls Congress and it is not the president, they still don't have too many options short of impeachment to reign a president in. Additionally, a congress vote is not enough here, the president needs to sign it in, which is how Trump is able to use the mechanism to demand his wall gets funded here. On the other hand, in most Westminster inspired systems, failure to pass a budget triggers a new election. And the executive power to not sign in a bill usually has much more strings attached. So this deadlock cannot occur.

mempko 8y ago
The federal government must run a deficit. Balancing the budget would be a disaster for the economy. Watch this short video https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LxJW7hl8oqM https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LxJW7hl8oqM
- Macha 8y ago
  Just to be clear, I agree with you. I was just trying to present their argument in as unbiased a manner as I could
VideriQuamEsse 8y ago
> I think the problem is with the debt ceiling. While the debt ceiling issue is also frequently in the news, that is not what's going on here. In this case, the government has the money, they're just not allowed to spend anything. In the US, unlike many other democracies, budgets expire. So in order for the government to continue functioning normally, the legislative branch has to pass a new budget bill before the previous one expires, which did not happen in this case.

dalbasal 8y ago

Most democracies run a parliamentary system, where the head of government has to have the support of parliament. There's no separation between government/executive from parliament. The point being that if a prime minister can't reach an agreement with parliament on some core issue (like annual budgets), they cease being the PM. Usually this means a new election. The US's checks and balances means that parliament and government can be in opposition to eachother, and prevent eachother from doing what they want. The president/government can veto legislation and parliament can de-fund government. This current manifestation is an odd one because the President is de-funding government, which is de-funding his own stuff. This is because the convention of "shutdown" already existed.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
Well don't look too hard at the UK right now. :) We have a government and PM that is effectively stuck there (thanks to the coalition's broken Fixed Term Parliaments Act) but unable to bring legislation through. They even lost a vote on the last finance bill, and the huge Brexit defeat. Either would normally have brought the government down. Belgium famously managed with no government for well over a year, without apparently making big decisions like finance or defence changes.

timdellinger 8y ago

relevant explainer video: https://youtu.be/KIbkoop4AYE https://youtu.be/KIbkoop4AYE (CGP Grey's "The Debt Limit Explained")

matt4077 8y ago
The debt limits is a similar, but distinct, mechanism.

peteey 8y ago

The problem may be deficit spending. Part of the budget is paid for with debt. I don't think you can auto-approve a raise in the debt ceiling.

Shivetya 8y ago

First off, the FAA should be privatized like it is in Canada and other countries, then it would not be beholden to a non customer. Second shut downs are structured as they are because Congress does not like the check and balances the Constitution tried to establish between branches of government. By making shut downs painful on the public, the employees of the government to include its soldiers, they can force a President to accept whatever budget they come up with. There is no line item veto, Congress would never dare give up that power. So it comes down to putting sufficient pressure on any Administration so they understand who is boss. They simply ran into someone who could call their game and honestly its the best result ever. We worry all the time about Administration overreach in this country with each change in whom is elected but the real overreach has always been the US Congress. The two parties do everything in their power to keep the game to themselves which means making it nigh impossible for anyone but them to change the rules.

umanwizard 8y ago

Really, every other country? Even Somalia, North Korea, or Venezuela? I find that often when people criticize the US by saying "no other country has this problem!" they are mainly thinking of parliamentary democracies in Western Europe. It's true that the US system doesn't function as well as most European countries. It functions better than most countries in the world. Countries are on a spectrum of institutional competence from roughly Venezuela to Iceland. The US is somewhere in the interior of this spectrum, and not on one of its endpoints. I'm not sure why people find this so incredibly surprising. Do people just think that because the US is wealthy and powerful, it somehow "ought to" rival Western Europe on every other index of development? That simply isn't the case -- the US is deeply dysfunctional in many ways and should be thought of in comparison with other deeply dysfunctional countries. Somebody can't "just" decide to fix its problems overnight.

socalnate1 8y ago
I would hope that the richest country in the world could endeavor to be better run than Somalia.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

csomar 8y ago

In my opinion, the US can afford to do that. Both because it has big control over its population; and that people are relatively wealthy and banks are happy to help. Try that in another country and you'll very likely get an instant uprising with either salaries paid or the government thrown overnight. In my country this happen with bus drivers (delayed payment of 1 day) and the drivers went on an instant strike. No pay, no work. It's that bad that for many, no payment means their life halting completely. So you can't afford it. Some people do not realize how good it is in the USA.