5 ms·

The biggest problem with the shutdown is exceptions. There should be zero exceptions, no police, no weather, nothing, absolutely nobody allowed to keep working

by ck2 13y ago

The biggest problem with the shutdown is exceptions. There should be zero exceptions, no police, no weather, nothing, absolutely nobody allowed to keep working. No piecemeal pick-and-choose whom to re-enable, fund all or none. Then this would be solved a tiny bit quicker. Plus we should do what Australia does and dissolve Congress entirely and have new elections. But I guess that part is a fantasy.

Jtsummers 13y ago
If police were federally funded that could make some sense, but they aren't. Is that part of the Australian constitution? We have no mechanism in place, presently, to do anything of the sort (I suppose we might be able to have local recall elections, but just checked. In 1967 courts ruled federal legislators weren't held to state recall laws. Things may have changed since then and a new court may rule differently.
- ck2 13y ago
  DC Police are federally funded. So is the military. All should be sent home, no exceptions, until everything funded again. I've read a few places in Australia if your Parliament deadlocks, it is dissolved and that actually happened once? All we have left is a "discharge petition" trick if 218 signatures can be assembled - it's actually something used in a movie. Which is insane. But that is the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discharge_petition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discharge_petition
  - msbarnett 13y ago
    > I've read a few places in Australia if your Parliament deadlocks, it is dissolved and that actually happened once? It's a fairly typical feature of parliamentary systems that, if the Government fails to pass a Matter of Confidence (such as, among other things, a budget), this constitutes the passage of a Motion of No Confidence, and results in the government being dissolved. This has happened any number of times in the history of Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan, and the UK, among many others. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prime_ministers_defeated_by_votes_of_no_confidence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prime_ministers_defeate... for a list
  - potatolicious 13y ago
    > "I've read a few places in Australia if your Parliament deadlocks, it is dissolved and that actually happened once?" This is a trait that applies to (nearly?) all countries that follow the Westminster system, which is to say Britain and many of its former colonies, including Australia. The basic concept is that if a vote of non-confidence is passed, then the ruling government must dissolve and elections must be called. The trick here is that all appropriations bills are automatically considered to also be confidence votes. I'm not sure about Australia, but in Canada it goes one step further: any bill, introduced by the ruling party, that represents their core party agenda, is also automatically a confidence vote. So, for example, if a party wins an election on a platform of banning gay marriage, and the subsequent bill fails to pass, the government is dissolved. This can have some positive effects - it tends to make party platforms more moderate and the legislation itself less extreme. This only works in multi-party systems though, since in a two-party system the majority will simply never lose a confidence vote.
- rz2k 13y ago
  Closing air traffic would be sufficient to make it a very big deal without all of the pain being focused on people who have little political voice. The economic fallout would be terrible for everyone, but once upon a time that would prevented a shutdown in the first place.
  - Jtsummers 13y ago
    It would also cripple the entire economy. Having that as a risk would almost certainly prevent a shutdown, but should a shutdown occur it would take months for some sectors to recover, and probably years or never for many others. Tourism, foreign visitors and domestic travelers. Shipping, which impacts not just FedEX, UPS and their ilk, but all the businesses needing to ship things or to receive shipments. It could be a boon for the rail and trucking industries, if only rail didn't also depend, to some extent, on federal activities. Trucking would be able to continue, but would never be able to keep up with demand. Of course, how much effect does the federal government have on the movement of oil (refined and unrefined) into and out of the country? Taking this further, we have no import/export anymore. Either that or both become entirely unregulated. No border agents so free immigration (well, illegal once the gov't starts up again, but who's stopping them) for all. So I suppose, unless we are anarchists (which I'm not) or desire the end of the US (which I don't), then leaving a few things running makes sense.
    - rz2k 13y ago
      However, you have to keep some perspective. How would a one day stop compare to a large winter storm's effect on aviation? How would it compare to the days after 9/11, or the early August 1981 air traffic controller strike? It's difficult to gauge the effect of a one day cessation of air traffic in comparison to, a week (or two?) of the services that are being shut down now, and say it is necessarily worse. How would it compare to the economic fallout of putting off progress in health care yet another decade or two? Furthermore, maintaining focus on keeping perspective, even a single day delay in payments on US securities could be the economic equivalent of the apocalypse, and yet that seems to be on the table for the craziest of the crazy legislators. There's a lot of discussion about what would make the issue more concrete, and people talk tough about how Congress shouldn't be paid. If they really wanted to inspire them to find a quick solution, maybe all general aviation across the country could be shut down. The economic fallout would be much less, but people who get a direct line to congressmen would tell them to get to work.
- Bockit 13y ago
  It is part of the constitution. What they're referring to is the events of 1975 when Gough Whitlam and the Labor party government failed to pass a budget by the hostile senate, leading to the dissolving of parliament by the Governor General. Basically the Governor General is the Queen's official representative in Australia and officially our head of state. They have the power in specific circumstances to dissolve parliament and force an election. One of those circumstances is if the government fails to legislate a budget. It's complicated how the scenario occurs, but it happened, the powers of the governor general were exercised and a new election was held. In this case the scenario is only possible because we recognise a power higher than our own parliament, that of the Queen. The USA doesn't have that but perhaps an alternative system could be worked out (if it's even desired, I think it's a useful thing to have). [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_...
  - siddboots 13y ago
    They're referring to Double Dissolution, which is indeed a constitutional power granted to the GG, but not the power utilized by Kerr in 1975. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_dissolution#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_dissolution#History The event you describe is related: Whitlam requested that the Kerr dissolve parliament, but instead Kerr chose to dismiss Whitlam and instate the opposition as caretaker.
PhasmaFelis 13y ago
So, you want to force Congress to behave by...killing thousands of people?
cabalamat 13y ago
> There should be zero exceptions In particular, congress shouldn't be paid.
- Amadou 13y ago
  > In particular, congress shouldn't be paid. The problem isn't that congress is being paid, it is that so much of congress does not need to be paid because they are independently wealthy. Excluding non-revenue generating property like cars, houses, artwork, etc - nearly half are millionaires. Their circumstances find them disconnected from the reality of the majority of this country's citizens. https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/11/congress-enjoys-robust-financial-status.html https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/11/congress-enjoys-rob...
sneak 13y ago
Am I the only one that doesn't want the shutdown to continue indefinitely? Why does everyone see this as some bad thing that needs solving? The federal government is massively overbudget. Even if all of this stuff stayed shut-down, we'd face tax increases. Turning it all back on means those tax increases will only be that much greater.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- jasonwatkinspdx 13y ago
  The shutdown will not save money. First, the shutdown does not affect expenditures. Those have already been voted in, and the shutdown will not retroactively change those allocations. Those that voted for the shutdown do not intend to revisit those allocations because they benefit from them just as much as anyone else involved in legislation. In particular the ACA already has the force of law as non-discretionary allocation. Second, those of us who remember the first time through this particular political dysfunction in the ninties can do the math. It cost us a couple billion back then. This time it's going to cost us an estimated 2% of our GDP this year. If you do not understand the implications of that number, I'm not sure what to even type. And that's assuming the political theater is concluded before the treasury starts defaulting on already sold bills as part of the debt ceiling fight. If that happens we enter a new global economic regime. The US will lose its astoundingly privileged place in the global financial markets as the lender of last resort. A very likely outcome is that Russia or China will ascend rapidly to become the world's foremost economic power for the next century or more. The only people who benefit from this action are those who think they can loot the building while it burns.

by ck2 13y ago

Jtsummers 13y ago

If police were federally funded that could make some sense, but they aren't. Is that part of the Australian constitution? We have no mechanism in place, presently, to do anything of the sort (I suppose we might be able to have local recall elections, but just checked. In 1967 courts ruled federal legislators weren't held to state recall laws. Things may have changed since then and a new court may rule differently.

ck2 13y ago
DC Police are federally funded. So is the military. All should be sent home, no exceptions, until everything funded again. I've read a few places in Australia if your Parliament deadlocks, it is dissolved and that actually happened once? All we have left is a "discharge petition" trick if 218 signatures can be assembled - it's actually something used in a movie. Which is insane. But that is the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discharge_petition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discharge_petition
- msbarnett 13y ago
  > I've read a few places in Australia if your Parliament deadlocks, it is dissolved and that actually happened once? It's a fairly typical feature of parliamentary systems that, if the Government fails to pass a Matter of Confidence (such as, among other things, a budget), this constitutes the passage of a Motion of No Confidence, and results in the government being dissolved. This has happened any number of times in the history of Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan, and the UK, among many others. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prime_ministers_defeated_by_votes_of_no_confidence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prime_ministers_defeate... for a list
- potatolicious 13y ago
  > "I've read a few places in Australia if your Parliament deadlocks, it is dissolved and that actually happened once?" This is a trait that applies to (nearly?) all countries that follow the Westminster system, which is to say Britain and many of its former colonies, including Australia. The basic concept is that if a vote of non-confidence is passed, then the ruling government must dissolve and elections must be called. The trick here is that all appropriations bills are automatically considered to also be confidence votes. I'm not sure about Australia, but in Canada it goes one step further: any bill, introduced by the ruling party, that represents their core party agenda, is also automatically a confidence vote. So, for example, if a party wins an election on a platform of banning gay marriage, and the subsequent bill fails to pass, the government is dissolved. This can have some positive effects - it tends to make party platforms more moderate and the legislation itself less extreme. This only works in multi-party systems though, since in a two-party system the majority will simply never lose a confidence vote.
rz2k 13y ago
Closing air traffic would be sufficient to make it a very big deal without all of the pain being focused on people who have little political voice. The economic fallout would be terrible for everyone, but once upon a time that would prevented a shutdown in the first place.
- Jtsummers 13y ago
  It would also cripple the entire economy. Having that as a risk would almost certainly prevent a shutdown, but should a shutdown occur it would take months for some sectors to recover, and probably years or never for many others. Tourism, foreign visitors and domestic travelers. Shipping, which impacts not just FedEX, UPS and their ilk, but all the businesses needing to ship things or to receive shipments. It could be a boon for the rail and trucking industries, if only rail didn't also depend, to some extent, on federal activities. Trucking would be able to continue, but would never be able to keep up with demand. Of course, how much effect does the federal government have on the movement of oil (refined and unrefined) into and out of the country? Taking this further, we have no import/export anymore. Either that or both become entirely unregulated. No border agents so free immigration (well, illegal once the gov't starts up again, but who's stopping them) for all. So I suppose, unless we are anarchists (which I'm not) or desire the end of the US (which I don't), then leaving a few things running makes sense.
  - rz2k 13y ago
    However, you have to keep some perspective. How would a one day stop compare to a large winter storm's effect on aviation? How would it compare to the days after 9/11, or the early August 1981 air traffic controller strike? It's difficult to gauge the effect of a one day cessation of air traffic in comparison to, a week (or two?) of the services that are being shut down now, and say it is necessarily worse. How would it compare to the economic fallout of putting off progress in health care yet another decade or two? Furthermore, maintaining focus on keeping perspective, even a single day delay in payments on US securities could be the economic equivalent of the apocalypse, and yet that seems to be on the table for the craziest of the crazy legislators. There's a lot of discussion about what would make the issue more concrete, and people talk tough about how Congress shouldn't be paid. If they really wanted to inspire them to find a quick solution, maybe all general aviation across the country could be shut down. The economic fallout would be much less, but people who get a direct line to congressmen would tell them to get to work.
Bockit 13y ago
It is part of the constitution. What they're referring to is the events of 1975 when Gough Whitlam and the Labor party government failed to pass a budget by the hostile senate, leading to the dissolving of parliament by the Governor General. Basically the Governor General is the Queen's official representative in Australia and officially our head of state. They have the power in specific circumstances to dissolve parliament and force an election. One of those circumstances is if the government fails to legislate a budget. It's complicated how the scenario occurs, but it happened, the powers of the governor general were exercised and a new election was held. In this case the scenario is only possible because we recognise a power higher than our own parliament, that of the Queen. The USA doesn't have that but perhaps an alternative system could be worked out (if it's even desired, I think it's a useful thing to have). [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_...
- siddboots 13y ago
  They're referring to Double Dissolution, which is indeed a constitutional power granted to the GG, but not the power utilized by Kerr in 1975. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_dissolution#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_dissolution#History The event you describe is related: Whitlam requested that the Kerr dissolve parliament, but instead Kerr chose to dismiss Whitlam and instate the opposition as caretaker.

PhasmaFelis 13y ago

So, you want to force Congress to behave by...killing thousands of people?

cabalamat 13y ago

> There should be zero exceptions In particular, congress shouldn't be paid.

Amadou 13y ago
> In particular, congress shouldn't be paid. The problem isn't that congress is being paid, it is that so much of congress does not need to be paid because they are independently wealthy. Excluding non-revenue generating property like cars, houses, artwork, etc - nearly half are millionaires. Their circumstances find them disconnected from the reality of the majority of this country's citizens. https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/11/congress-enjoys-robust-financial-status.html https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/11/congress-enjoys-rob...

sneak 13y ago

Am I the only one that doesn't want the shutdown to continue indefinitely? Why does everyone see this as some bad thing that needs solving? The federal government is massively overbudget. Even if all of this stuff stayed shut-down, we'd face tax increases. Turning it all back on means those tax increases will only be that much greater.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
jasonwatkinspdx 13y ago
The shutdown will not save money. First, the shutdown does not affect expenditures. Those have already been voted in, and the shutdown will not retroactively change those allocations. Those that voted for the shutdown do not intend to revisit those allocations because they benefit from them just as much as anyone else involved in legislation. In particular the ACA already has the force of law as non-discretionary allocation. Second, those of us who remember the first time through this particular political dysfunction in the ninties can do the math. It cost us a couple billion back then. This time it's going to cost us an estimated 2% of our GDP this year. If you do not understand the implications of that number, I'm not sure what to even type. And that's assuming the political theater is concluded before the treasury starts defaulting on already sold bills as part of the debt ceiling fight. If that happens we enter a new global economic regime. The US will lose its astoundingly privileged place in the global financial markets as the lender of last resort. A very likely outcome is that Russia or China will ascend rapidly to become the world's foremost economic power for the next century or more. The only people who benefit from this action are those who think they can loot the building while it burns.