4 ms·

Can someone from the US explain this whole "Government Shutdown" thing for outsiders please. I think I can speak for a lot of people when I say that this is not

Can someone from the US explain this whole "Government Shutdown" thing for outsiders please. I think I can speak for a lot of people when I say that this is not what we had expected to occur.

ihsw 13y ago
Annual budgets are debated as legislation, and that particular piece of legislation did not pass. As such, non-essential employees will not be paid so they're being given time off.
- moocowduckquack 13y ago
  I get that bit, I am just amazed that you can sabotage your own civil legislature that easily.
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    This is the legislature sabotaging themselves. They set a deadline for themselves, and then as the deadline approaches they try to use it as political leverage and go through standard varieties of political posturing, e.g. "The other party would rather let the government shut down than pass our bill!"
    - humanrebar 13y ago
      That and Congress hasn't passed a budget in years.
  - ihsw 13y ago
    It's not supposed to happen, but the trend in America seems to be leaning towards hyper-majorities where bipartisan cooperation is the exception rather than the rule. Gerrymandering is used to effectively destroy any semblance of political competition -- congressional representatives can safely rely on a guaranteed re-election which results in them never having to work with "the other side." This results in political platforms built on hatred and fear, "See! We hate them as much as you do!" and so forth. Obstructionism and other forms of political football are the basis of our legislature. It's really sad because we end up measuring our success by how much we're destroying the other party's accomplishments rather than celebrating our own.
    - humanrebar 13y ago
      Good point, but I believe the long-tail forces at work here are bigger than gerrymandering. I also believe weakening federalism also contributes to polarization. The stakes are much higher across the board when you can't just move to Texas or Massachusetts depending on what you're fed up with.
      - mmastrac 13y ago
        Did you mean "strengthening federalism"?
        humanrebar 13y ago
        No. The as the national government becomes stronger, the separation of powers among the national, state, and local governments (federalism) becomes less pronounced. So when a big national laws change (maybe nation-wide healthcare reform passes or a new ruling on campaign financing is handed down), you don't have the option of moving to another city or state if you don't like the law. This means that the stakes are necessarily higher and conflicts will be more pronounced. In other words, good fences make good neighbors, and our fences aren't as wide or tall as they used to be.
  - ianstallings 13y ago
    The founding fathers were very keen on keeping all three branches under control using each other. It can get messy. But this idea comes from the UK, back when Parliament was a means of balancing the power of the King: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_of_the_purse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_of_the_purse In the case of the US it's put into place so the Executive Branch cannot wield too much power. Sometimes a lot of power is good. But quite often throughout history, too much power makes it ripe for abuse. Usually what happens is they come to an agreement but this time, like a few times in the past, they didn't come to one before the government would furlough non-essential staff members. It's ugly, but it's a work in progress. Since we have a purely representative form of democracy the best the American citizen can do is vote for new Representatives, Senators, Judges (sometimes), and Presidents. Oh and of course YELL FROM THE ROOFTOPS :D
    - moocowduckquack 13y ago
      Yes, but surely there are ways of achieving the same thing without laying off the people who write the army wage checks, for example. Whatever your views on the use of armed force, I think we can all agree that paying the people with the guns on time is generally considered a good move. And shutting down a large section of their own economy in the middle of a financial crisis is just beyond insane. Why can't they sign the budgets 6 months ahead, or something.
      - mikeash 13y ago
        Because signing a budget six months ahead of time would require compromise and forward thinking, both things that the current Congress lacks. A lot of legislators are basically forbidden to compromise, either due to their principles, or because they will lose their next election if they do because they come from a district full of extremists. Or, generally, both. (The one tends to cause the other, of course.) If you can't compromise, it doesn't matter when you start talking. You'll never work out a deal until you're forced to.
      - ianstallings 13y ago
        The military will get paid during this particular shutdown, and the military will continue to function as it always does. A lot of essential workers, determined by the government, will still come to work and get paid.
joshuahedlund 13y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdown http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdown It has actually happened several times in the last forty years.
- moocowduckquack 13y ago
  That sort of confuses me even more. It isn't the sort of thing you would want to develop into a tactic, it just seems risky as hell.
  - humanrebar 13y ago
    Risky politically? In practical terms, it isn't that risky. As has been pointed out, this has happened before. The U.S. hasn't defaulted on its treasury bills. The Secret Service doesn't stop protecting the President. Federally-funded highways are still operating.
    - moocowduckquack 13y ago
      I don't think it is that risky to do once or twice maybe, but I don't think the risk substantially decreases through repetition. It is sabotage of civil services as an allowed political tactic, which is pretty unstable. All you need is bad timing.
    - contingencies 13y ago
      The U.S. hasn't defaulted on its treasury bills. Err, what? That's like the head of a mint justifying taking a holiday because they haven't stopped printing the money used at the resort.
    - HarryHirsch 13y ago
      Meanwhile Curiosity, the Mars Rover, isn't moving. Thankfully, there aren't any spacecraft scheduled for mission-critical operations (orbital insertion, for example), or those would go unsupervised, too. Most all NASA is on furlough, as if people didn't need the money. A colleague is waiting for word on his grant application from the NIH. Ordinarily his panel (~ 20 people) would converge on Washington this Friday and decide on who gets funded. That is going to be postponed, and it's hard to settle on a date when all 20 are available. Everyone has bought their plane tickets already and cannot use them now; they will have to buy new tickets- again on Federal funds. Since the application is in already he cannot submit the same to the NSF, as he would have done in case it got turned down. The immediate cost, and the knock-on cost is immense.

Can someone from the US explain this whole "Government Shutdown" thing for outsiders please. I think I can speak for a lot of people when I say that this is not what we had expected to occur.

ihsw 13y ago

Annual budgets are debated as legislation, and that particular piece of legislation did not pass. As such, non-essential employees will not be paid so they're being given time off.

moocowduckquack 13y ago
I get that bit, I am just amazed that you can sabotage your own civil legislature that easily.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  This is the legislature sabotaging themselves. They set a deadline for themselves, and then as the deadline approaches they try to use it as political leverage and go through standard varieties of political posturing, e.g. "The other party would rather let the government shut down than pass our bill!"
  - humanrebar 13y ago
    That and Congress hasn't passed a budget in years.
- ihsw 13y ago
  It's not supposed to happen, but the trend in America seems to be leaning towards hyper-majorities where bipartisan cooperation is the exception rather than the rule. Gerrymandering is used to effectively destroy any semblance of political competition -- congressional representatives can safely rely on a guaranteed re-election which results in them never having to work with "the other side." This results in political platforms built on hatred and fear, "See! We hate them as much as you do!" and so forth. Obstructionism and other forms of political football are the basis of our legislature. It's really sad because we end up measuring our success by how much we're destroying the other party's accomplishments rather than celebrating our own.
  - humanrebar 13y ago
    Good point, but I believe the long-tail forces at work here are bigger than gerrymandering. I also believe weakening federalism also contributes to polarization. The stakes are much higher across the board when you can't just move to Texas or Massachusetts depending on what you're fed up with.
    - mmastrac 13y ago
      Did you mean "strengthening federalism"?
      - humanrebar 13y ago
        No. The as the national government becomes stronger, the separation of powers among the national, state, and local governments (federalism) becomes less pronounced. So when a big national laws change (maybe nation-wide healthcare reform passes or a new ruling on campaign financing is handed down), you don't have the option of moving to another city or state if you don't like the law. This means that the stakes are necessarily higher and conflicts will be more pronounced. In other words, good fences make good neighbors, and our fences aren't as wide or tall as they used to be.
- ianstallings 13y ago
  The founding fathers were very keen on keeping all three branches under control using each other. It can get messy. But this idea comes from the UK, back when Parliament was a means of balancing the power of the King: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_of_the_purse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_of_the_purse In the case of the US it's put into place so the Executive Branch cannot wield too much power. Sometimes a lot of power is good. But quite often throughout history, too much power makes it ripe for abuse. Usually what happens is they come to an agreement but this time, like a few times in the past, they didn't come to one before the government would furlough non-essential staff members. It's ugly, but it's a work in progress. Since we have a purely representative form of democracy the best the American citizen can do is vote for new Representatives, Senators, Judges (sometimes), and Presidents. Oh and of course YELL FROM THE ROOFTOPS :D
  - moocowduckquack 13y ago
    Yes, but surely there are ways of achieving the same thing without laying off the people who write the army wage checks, for example. Whatever your views on the use of armed force, I think we can all agree that paying the people with the guns on time is generally considered a good move. And shutting down a large section of their own economy in the middle of a financial crisis is just beyond insane. Why can't they sign the budgets 6 months ahead, or something.
    - mikeash 13y ago
      Because signing a budget six months ahead of time would require compromise and forward thinking, both things that the current Congress lacks. A lot of legislators are basically forbidden to compromise, either due to their principles, or because they will lose their next election if they do because they come from a district full of extremists. Or, generally, both. (The one tends to cause the other, of course.) If you can't compromise, it doesn't matter when you start talking. You'll never work out a deal until you're forced to.
    - ianstallings 13y ago
      The military will get paid during this particular shutdown, and the military will continue to function as it always does. A lot of essential workers, determined by the government, will still come to work and get paid.

joshuahedlund 13y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdown http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdown It has actually happened several times in the last forty years.

moocowduckquack 13y ago
That sort of confuses me even more. It isn't the sort of thing you would want to develop into a tactic, it just seems risky as hell.
- humanrebar 13y ago
  Risky politically? In practical terms, it isn't that risky. As has been pointed out, this has happened before. The U.S. hasn't defaulted on its treasury bills. The Secret Service doesn't stop protecting the President. Federally-funded highways are still operating.
  - moocowduckquack 13y ago
    I don't think it is that risky to do once or twice maybe, but I don't think the risk substantially decreases through repetition. It is sabotage of civil services as an allowed political tactic, which is pretty unstable. All you need is bad timing.
  - contingencies 13y ago
    The U.S. hasn't defaulted on its treasury bills. Err, what? That's like the head of a mint justifying taking a holiday because they haven't stopped printing the money used at the resort.
  - HarryHirsch 13y ago
    Meanwhile Curiosity, the Mars Rover, isn't moving. Thankfully, there aren't any spacecraft scheduled for mission-critical operations (orbital insertion, for example), or those would go unsupervised, too. Most all NASA is on furlough, as if people didn't need the money. A colleague is waiting for word on his grant application from the NIH. Ordinarily his panel (~ 20 people) would converge on Washington this Friday and decide on who gets funded. That is going to be postponed, and it's hard to settle on a date when all 20 are available. Everyone has bought their plane tickets already and cannot use them now; they will have to buy new tickets- again on Federal funds. Since the application is in already he cannot submit the same to the NSF, as he would have done in case it got turned down. The immediate cost, and the knock-on cost is immense.