3 ms·
The things that are and aren’t considered essential enough to fund during a government shutdown are insane. Is this enshrined in a statute somewhere? Feels like
by johncolanduoni 1y ago
The things that are and aren’t considered essential enough to fund during a government shutdown are insane. Is this enshrined in a statute somewhere? Feels like adding air traffic controllers to that list should be a no-brainer (and broadly politically popular).
- CGamesPlay 1y agoIsn't the point of the government shutdown to be painful? It's a self-imposed failure condition, we could "optimize" it by removing the shutdown entirely.
- evilduck 1y agoAgreed, but the people who can legislate away shutdowns are the same ones who are currently using shutdowns as a political tool. There's no chance the current climate would do that.
- Sabinus 1y agoMany parliamentary systems dissolve the government if they fail to pass a budget. "Can't run the country, time for an election. "
- gruez 1y ago>Is this enshrined in a statute somewhere? Feels like adding air traffic controllers to that list should be a no-brainer (and broadly politically popular). They are considered essential. That means they have to work, but not be paid. https://time.com/7329683/government-shutdown-flight-delays-cancellations-air-traffick-controllers-pay/ https://time.com/7329683/government-shutdown-flight-delays-c...
- johncolanduoni 1y agoBut it seems like certain jobs are funded for the duration anyway (infamously, members of Congress are one). Who would argue that air traffic controllers shouldn’t be on that rarefied list?
- dataflow 1y agoIIRC the term of interest is "permanent appropriation".
- eigen 1y ago> But it seems like certain jobs are funded for the duration anyway (infamously, members of Congress are one). I think thats due to the 27th Amendment [1] > No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened. can't change (or stop) congressional pay until an election. guess it's a double-edged sword they can't give themselves in immediate pay raise, which I think was the point of ratification in 1992, but also can't cut their pay for failing to pass a budget. [1] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-27/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-27/
- johncolanduoni 1y agoBut they’re not the only ones - apparently federal judges and some high-level political appointees are authorized to be paid during the shutdown. There’s some other mechanism for not rug-pulling federal paychecks.
- bombcar 1y agoApparently it can also depend how funds were sent and if they have other sources.
- Tadpole9181 1y agoMembers of Congress must receive their pay, or the wealthy members could coordinate a shutdown that puts a significant financial pressure on the ones that rely on the congressional income, forcing them to cave to their demands.
- shadowgovt 1y agoSo what happens if they don't show up? Are they at risk of jail or at risk of being fired and replaced by the new recruit, Michael McDoesnt-Exist (https://www.aviationtoday.com/2025/07/25/americas-atc-meltdown-why-the-skies-are-short-staffed-and-the-remedies-that-are-needed/ https://www.aviationtoday.com/2025/07/25/americas-atc-meltdo...)?
- johncolanduoni 1y agoI could imagine some sort of loss of seniority or pay level, even if they’d hire them right back because we already have an ATC shortage.
- shadowgovt 1y agoWell, that's certainly a negotiation standpoint the government can start from. ... But they're hurting for recruits in a big way so even at their size their negotiating position isn't as strong as they might want.
- evilduck 1y agoNothing happens to them. They can't be jailed for taking their PTO or sick leave, they are free to quit and there are not enough recruits in the pipeline to backfill them en masse. They could be put on a PIP, or fired for not showing up, or some other retaliatory and childish Trump action, but what is the government realistically going to do to fix this? Fire them for poor performance and make sure that a short term shortage becomes permanent? How do you even recruit backfills when the entire world knows you fucked over the previous crew and promise to do it to the next batch too?
- nobody9999 1y ago>How do you even recruit backfills when the entire world knows you fucked over the previous crew and promise to do it to the next batch too? What's more, even if you could, who is going to take a job for which they will not be paid as long as the shutdown continues?
- 1y ago
- o11c 1y agoToday in "blatant constitutional violations specified by law" ...
- wbl 1y agoShutdowns used to not exist because Congress would authorize the President to spend at existing levels (but not the army, for reasons). This changed in the 1970s.
- gruez 1y agoSource? Wikipedia contradicts you. >Before 1917, the U.S. had no debt ceiling. 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.[25] 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.[26][27] >In 1953, the U.S. Treasury risked reaching the debt ceiling of $275 billion. Though President Eisenhower requested that Congress increase it on July 30, 1953, the Senate refused to act on it. As a result, the president asked federal agencies to reduce how much they spent, plus the Treasury Department used its cash balances with banks to stay under the debt ceiling. And, starting in November 1953, Treasury monetized close to $1 billion of gold left over in its vaults, which helped keep it from exceeding the $275 billion limit. During spring and summer 1954, the Senate and the executive branch negotiated on a debt ceiling increase, and a $6 billion one was passed on August 28, 1954.[28] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_debt_ceiling#Legislative_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_debt_ceiling#Leg...
- ternus 1y agoDebt ceiling is different than a shutdown. Debt ceiling negotiations are about raising the debt limit to pay for spending Congress has already appropriated. The debt ceiling failure mode is "the US defaults on its debt." Shutdowns happen when Congress hasn't appropriated new money by passing a budget. The shutdown failure mode is "there isn't enough money to pay for existing programs."
- sjm-lbm 1y agoThat's the debt ceiling, which is a different weird quirk of how the USG is funded. The relevant page for shutdowns is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdowns_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdowns_in_the_Un... "Funding gaps have led to shutdowns since 1980, when Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti issued a legal opinion requiring it. This opinion was not consistently adhered to through the 1980s, but since 1990 all funding gaps lasting longer than a few hours have led to a shutdown. As of October 2025, 11 funding gaps have led to federal employees being furloughed."
- crm9125 1y agoMeh, flying is a luxury. We can all stay put until the government pulls its head out of its ass.
- Zagitta 1y agoPlanes transport more things than people, like organs for transplants. Are those a luxury too?
- ssl-3 1y agoI'm an American, and I'm absolutely certain at this point in my life that I will never be able to afford to pay for an organ transplant to benefit myself or anyone that I know, regardless of any compatibile combination of need and availability that may arise. Therefore, it will never happen. So yes: I'd like to suggest that organ transplants may be in fact be luxuries. (If the question were instead worded as "Should organ transplants be considered luxuries?" then my answer would be written very differently.)
- johncolanduoni 1y agoYou may never be able to afford it, and your private insurance may not pay for it, but Medicare will without much fanfare. So if you’re planning on living past 65 it could happen.
- ssl-3 1y agoThere's a completely non-zero chance that I won't be able to afford to live to reach 65 and will be therefore will never gain the availability of the possibility of receiving an organ transplant. For now, it remains a luxurious and unattainable concept to me.
- temp0826 1y agoCan't tell if joking, healthcare is essentially a luxury now. An organ transplant could very likely lead to someone becoming destitute.
- nocoiner 1y agoLots of things enshrined in statute (appropriations, prohibitions on impoundment, the name of the Department of Defense) have been disregarded in this year of our lord 2025.
- wvenable 1y agoWhat's insane is just accepting that government shutdown is a thing. Determining what is and is not essentially is just splitting hairs.