Government Shutdown a Good Thing? (In the long run)

[Lord MJ]

Reading musings that elements of both sides (the tea party and the progressives) feel that a Government Shutdown would be a good thing.

Tea Party - Shutdown will show the people that we don't really need those government services so we can safely get rid of those programs wholesale to eliminate the deficit.

Progressives - Shutdown will finally show what is needed to maintain a modern society and it will finally show the folly of the "cut, cut, cut" ideology. We actually need a robust government apparatus or a functioning modern society.

What do you think. Would a shutdown and its consequent harm finally start to eliminate some of the ideological extremism in our politics (I'm obviously hoping the Tea Party is the side that is discredited here).

[Highlord Laan]

A shutdown will do more harm than good, but what galls me is the pure asinine stupidity of it. Were I or anyone else to walk away from our fucking jobs for whatever reason, we'd be rightfully out on our asses in the street.

These asshole get to do it in a fit of pique and still get paid. Want to walk out? Fine. Have them come back to all security being told to refuse them entry, their pay rescinded, their benefits forfeited, and end up escorted off the premises by police once they start making a fuss.

Then elect/hire someone to replace them. If they want to play games, they can get fucked. Too bad it would never happen.

[Broomstick]

Last time we had a shutdown of this nature the Republicans came off looking like asshole children having a temper tantrum.

Reading musings that elements of both sides (the tea party and the progressives) feel that a Government Shutdown would be a good thing.

Tea Party - Shutdown will show the people that we don't really need those government services so we can safely get rid of those programs wholesale to eliminate the deficit.

Their timing sucks - a shutdown now is likely to delay some tax refunds, and people get pissy when they don't get their money. The Tea Party doesn't give a fuck about government employees, seeing them as the enemy, but Joe Average getting pissed because his refund is late should matter to them (actually, so should government employees as they vote, too, but they won't see it that way.)

Progressives - Shutdown will finally show what is needed to maintain a modern society and it will finally show the folly of the "cut, cut, cut" ideology. We actually need a robust government apparatus or a functioning modern society.

Weak argument - the average person doesn't have that much contact with the Federal government. Where lack of Federal input affects states, counties, and cities the causes and effects are somewhat hidden and also delayed.

That, and essential services don't stop - if they pulled the plug on ATC, for example, and shut down the air travel system by doing so THAT would be an illustration of how Federal services are incredibly important and useful - but they won't do that.

What do you think. Would a shutdown and its consequent harm finally start to eliminate some of the ideological extremism in our politics (I'm obviously hoping the Tea Party is the side that is discredited here).

Based on what happened last time between Clinton and Gingrich, the president and the Democrats will benefit and the Tea Party will look like asshat obstructionists. On the other hand, Obama and the Dems could still screw up. At this point I'm predicting a similar outcome, but never underestimate the ability of politicians to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Frankly, I'll believe this is more than ideological grandstanding when the Tea Party crowd in Congress gives up THEIR paycheck as a demonstration of budget cutting, but it will never happen.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

What do you think. Would a shutdown and its consequent harm finally start to eliminate some of the ideological extremism in our politics (I'm obviously hoping the Tea Party is the side that is discredited here).

A government shutdown will do no such thing. It certainly didn't do it the last time a Republican-controlled House gleefully allowed the government to shut down (which happened back in 1995.) The GOP and the Democrats are fighting over the exact same things that precipitated the 1995 budget crisis. If anything, it's widened the ideological divide.

What it will do is set back whichever party manages to get the blame for it. Gingrich made a critical gaffe during the shutdown which resulted in the portrayal that he did it solely to be petty (he made remarks about being snubbed by President Clinton.) Yet, he ultimately got what he wanted. The GOP and the Tea Party may also ultimately force the sitting President to give them real concessions. Good for rich white guys. Bad for the rest of us.

Fortunately, if the Tea Party is good at something, it's being unashamed in their extremism. The backlash may return the Democrats the House, but don't count on it to return the incumbent President to office. Unlike the 1996 campaign, the GOP won't be putting up anyone as wooden as Bob "I was dull and boring before Viagra" Dole.

[Eframepilot]

Fortunately, if the Tea Party is good at something, it's being unashamed in their extremism. The backlash may return the Democrats the House, but don't count on it to return the incumbent President to office. Unlike the 1996 campaign, the GOP won't be putting up anyone as wooden as Bob "I was dull and boring before Viagra" Dole.

Ha. No, it's quite the opposite. The GOP presidential field is terrible and Obama is a strong incumbent. Obama has a much better chance of reelection than the Democrats do of taking back the House, or even of holding onto the Senate (the Senate map is very bad for them in 2012).

The only good that can come from the shutdown is the political harm to the GOP... as long as they don't manage to lie and blame it all on the Democrats.

[Rahvin]

Will any government payments be affected? Unemployment, disability, Medicaid, Medicare, food stamps, etc? I'm not sure where Federal stops and State begins, but would a shutdown affect people receiving assistance like that? Those are the people I worry about the most. Even if the Tea Party and most Republicans are perfectly fine with letting a bunch of them die by cutting funding for programs that keep people alive.

[Broomstick]

Well, a lot of those are issued once a month, usually around the first, so if the government shuts down on Friday it will be a couple weeks before most of those folks see the lack, if any. Medical payments should continue as an essential service. Medicaid is a state service (it's Medicare that's Federal). Unemployment is tricky - I think it's the first six months that comes from the state, so that should be unaffected, but anyone on a Federal-level extension (pretty much anyone still collecting after six months) may not see a check during the shut down.

[Patrick Degan]

The only good that can come from the shutdown is the political harm to the GOP... as long as they don't manage to lie and blame it all on the Democrats.

Oh, the GOP will lie and blame it all on the Democrats alright. That's a given. The problem with that strategy however is that the GOP have invested two decades in building themselves up as the party that wants to dismantle the Federal government and the teabag caucus in both houses have been enthusiastically braying for just such an outcome. Which is why anyone with more than two braincells to rub together won't buy it. The ovine audience for FoxGOP will, but that's also a given.

[Tribun]

I have a serious question:

How is such a thing like a goverment shutdown even possible in a nation like the US?

For Europeans, the mere idea is simply insane, that just because the government has problems with agreeing on budget things, the state effectively stops working. How the hell is that even possible on your side of the Atlantic? Shoddy constructed laws or a general weakness in the way the state is structured?

[Broomstick]

Our Federal government has been running six months without an actual budget, using "emergency" legislation to appropriate funds for things like payroll. Without authorizing a budget or another emergency bill there is no authority to issue checks or direct deposits. The Federal government is barred from receiving free labor, so without the money to pay for labor all the labor... stops.

Except for that necessary to defend the country and protect the health and safey of the population, so that goes on anyway.

Normally, a shut down only lasts a day or two (there have been probably a dozen or more in my lifetime) but this is a circumstance where the shutdown is a showdown, to make a political point.

The country survives it, because a lot of stuff is handled at the state or even more local level. Remember that US states were once nearly autonomous political entities (and one was formerly a kingdom and another an independent republic). There is a certain duplication of functions such that even if the Feds aren't at work stuff still gets down. Some things that are done on a national level in Europe on done on the state level here, so are not affected. There is less impact, I think, than if the national government of a typical European nation shut down.

[Simon_Jester]

So. To sum up and slightly add to what Broomstick said:

It happens when we have intense partisan conflict. Compare to the Belgians' troubles with forming a government; the split between radical budget-cutting Republicans and Democrats isn't quite that intense, but it's significant.

It happens because our laws make it illegal for employers to accept labor that they can't pay for. This normally works rather well as a way of forcing people not to make employers force extra hours out of employees. Unfortunately, it works badly when something prevents the employer from signing a check that specific week, since normal employees are paid for their work every week or two.

It happens because the government does not have a vast store of money with which to pay employees beyond what is budgeted for paying them. Also because many employees' jobs revolve around spending money to do other things... which, in turn, cannot be done if the government has no money.

It is ALLOWED to happen because:

Some American politicians are grandstanding idiots.

The federal government can shut down without paralyzing our society, at least for a week or two; this gives the grandstanding idiots more freedom to be idiotic without facing the consequences.

Truly critical services are kept going more or less regardless; the government scrapes up the money to pay the absolutely essential workers from somewhere. This, too, gives grandstanding idiots more freedom to be idiotic without facing the consequences.

[Johonebesus]

I have a serious question:

How is such a thing like a goverment shutdown even possible in a nation like the US?

For Europeans, the mere idea is simply insane, that just because the government has problems with agreeing on budget things, the state effectively stops working. How the hell is that even possible on your side of the Atlantic? Shoddy constructed laws or a general weakness in the way the state is structured?

The main reason is that our political system, and therefore our government, is simply broken. The Westminster system might prevent this particular issue, since I believe this sort of impasse would trigger an election, but then look at Belgium. Ultimately a republic depends upon the strength of its civil class, and in the U.S. our society right now just can't manage to support a functioning democratic system. I don't think there is a constitutional fix.

Single payer has the support of a large majority of the populace, and of course was one of the most economical and effective options out there. Yet it was "not feasible," was off the table from the start, was largely excluded from the public discourse by the media, and later derided by the Democratic press secretary, who said that those who wanted that "Canadian" system were a tiny minority of extremists. The political class and its media need to cowed or replaced. In functioning democracies, the government is afraid of the people. I can only hope that the recent unrest over the union busting acts gain momentum instead of petering out, but that's probably a foolish fantasy.

[Simon_Jester]

Well, this happened before in 1995 and it didn't really reflect a broken government- both Republicans and Democrats were engaged on issues the American public sincerely wanted them to be engaged on. Like it or not, a lot of people sent Congressmen to Washington in 1994 to cut the budget; if that was a bad plan it needed to be addressed in the public space, not just dismissed as "democracy isn't working." I would argue the same is true today.

Temporary hiccups in governance are to be expected, and worked around, even in a 'functioning democracy-' parliamentary systems often have to scrape a bit to form a government, for instance.

The fact that we've had two in twenty years over the same issue, under totally different economic circumstances that one would think would provoke totally different behavior in the parties responsible for running the government... well, that's more worrying.

[Psychic_Sandwich]

I have a serious question:

How is such a thing like a goverment shutdown even possible in a nation like the US?

For Europeans, the mere idea is simply insane, that just because the government has problems with agreeing on budget things, the state effectively stops working. How the hell is that even possible on your side of the Atlantic? Shoddy constructed laws or a general weakness in the way the state is structured?

The main reason is that our political system, and therefore our government, is simply broken. The Westminster system might prevent this particular issue, since I believe this sort of impasse would trigger an election, but then look at Belgium. Ultimately a republic depends upon the strength of its civil class, and in the U.S. our society right now just can't manage to support a functioning democratic system. I don't think there is a constitutional fix.

Single payer has the support of a large majority of the populace, and of course was one of the most economical and effective options out there. Yet it was "not feasible," was off the table from the start, was largely excluded from the public discourse by the media, and later derided by the Democratic press secretary, who said that those who wanted that "Canadian" system were a tiny minority of extremists. The political class and its media need to cowed or replaced. In functioning democracies, the government is afraid of the people. I can only hope that the recent unrest over the union busting acts gain momentum instead of petering out, but that's probably a foolish fantasy.

The problem in Belgium, as I understand it, is that the population is divided enough that another election would return basically the same results. Other than that, yes, you're right that in the Westminster system, this sort of thing triggers elections. In point of fact, the entire reason the Lords were neutered in Britain was because the Tories were using their dominance in the upper house to prevent the Liberals from passing a budget. The result was the Liberals convincing the King to appoint a whole bunch of Liberal peers if they won an election, them calling said election when their budget failed (if the government fails to pass a money bill, it means an instant election), winning, and the Tories caving in to preserve their majority in the Lords. They also caved in to the first Parliament Act because that was backed by the same threat.

[Winston Blake]

The Westminster system might prevent this particular issue, since I believe this sort of impasse would trigger an election, but then look at Belgium.

In Australia's case, deadlocks are solved with a double dissolution::

If the Senate and House twice fail to agree on a piece of legislation, Section 57 of the Constitution allows the Governor-General to dissolve the House and the entire Senate and issue writs for an election in which every seat in the Parliament is contested.

I guess that's a nice thing about having a separate head-of-state and head-of-government. The Queen can conceptually step in and say 'OK, if you want to be obstinate asses, guess what, you're all fired, all your seats are up for election now'. I don't see how this could ever happen in American-style democracy; instead it would just drag on for ages.

[Simon_Jester]

Even the idea of holding elections at irregular intervals is a foreign novelty in the US system- and it's a precondition for any kind of "dissolve the government for its failure" response. The US Constitution specifies very rigidly the term of office of various elected figures, and the spacing between elections. We hold special elections in emergencies to replace individuals who die/resign/whatever, but we don't just replace the entire government on short notice like that.

[SirNitram]

The stupidity of this is that the fight is no longer even about the budget. It's asinine policy 'riders' full of 'fuck you, X group', especially women's health.

[Broomstick]

The fight was never about money, Nitram, it was always about the social agenda and deliberately hurting groups the conservatives are opposed to, by hitting them economically.

[JME2]

The fight was never about money, Nitram, it was always about the social agenda and deliberately hurting groups the conservatives are opposed to, by hitting them economically.

Which is why I'm hoping this comes back to bite the GOP's ass big time.

[Highlord Laan]

The fight was never about money, Nitram, it was always about the social agenda and deliberately hurting groups the conservatives are opposed to, by hitting them economically.

Which is why I'm hoping this comes back to bite the GOP's ass big time.

It most likely won't. The American Fascist Party is too adept at throwing up a political smokescreen and has too much of the US's brainless waste-of-space populace eating out of it's hand for any damage to image to be all that severe or lasting.

[Cecelia5578]

The fight was never about money, Nitram, it was always about the social agenda and deliberately hurting groups the conservatives are opposed to, by hitting them economically.

Which is why I'm hoping this comes back to bite the GOP's ass big time.

I think the point of the last minute bill floated by Republican's yesterday (in clear violation of their promise to not have anymore continuing resolutions after today) was to get the military funded. I don't think they realized that the military won't be getting paid this time around. Which can be a very bad thing, as they are a reliable GOP bloc. Of course, people who vote Republican and rely on government benefits or who are federal employees doesn't make too much sense, but people need to realize that getting played by culture warriors and voting against their own economic interest has consequences.

[Simon_Jester]

The fight was never about money, Nitram, it was always about the social agenda and deliberately hurting groups the conservatives are opposed to, by hitting them economically.

Yeah. That's why NPR was on the target list for months, while, say, Social Security wasn't.

There are a lot of ways to fund the government and avoid deficit spending. All of them involve tax increases or large cuts to major government programs, or far more likely both. As such, the Tea Party has never been interested in either- campaigning on "kill Social Security" backfires, and increasing taxes is anathema to the movement.

What's politically achievable for them, or at least close to it, is the systematic attempt to dismantle 'liberal culture' as they see it in America- because they can target that more easily. Though I really, really think much should be made of the Tea Party's plan to kill Big Bird (by way of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting).

[Simon_Jester]

Random thought:

If the Republicans had a Revolution, than in the beginning there were the Girondists, who were capable of governing, and were at least as interested in governing as they were in ideology.

But now, with the Tea Party, we have the Jacobins. Who are more interested in revolutionary ideology than anything else, because they are convinced that if they can just fill the government with sufficient revolutionary fervor, everything else will work out all right.

I think that's fundamental to this kind of standoff: you must have someone who really believes in their bones that it is more important for the state to work as they desire than for the state to work at all.

[SCRawl]

Looks like the grown-ups have gotten the job done.

U.S. Congress leaders reached an accord to slash $39 billion from federal spending this year while jettisoning Republican provisos that would have defunded Planned Parenthood and blocked environmental rules, pulling the government back from the brink of a shutdown with less than two hours to spare.

Word of the deal came from Jon Summers, an aide to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

The House and Senate were expected to act quickly tonight to consider a stopgap measure to keep the government open into next week while lawmakers drafted legislation implementing the agreement.

[Patrick Degan]

So...

The Republicans got only $4bn more in cuts than what was on the table, and in exchange they had to drop their culture war bullshit to come away with a deal and "claims" of victory.

Boehner was fucked either way. Even if he really was not wanting a government shutdown, he's now in bad odor with the teabaggers, who will see him as another establishment drone instead of the revolutionary they were so hoping for. And the measure of his "victory" really is not that much, which weakens his position. Yes, he got a compromise deal, which would be a positive in normal times, but with the all-or-nothing ideological terms that much of the debate between factions has gotten down to in the congress, a compromise is a defeat. Especially in GOP terms.

If the shutdown had happened, no matter how much spin the whole GOP Reichspropagandakorps would have tried to put on, there was no way Boehner and the Republicans would have avoided the blame for the chaos that would have ensued. His poll numbers as well as his party's would have crashed because, despite everything the Republicans keep telling themselves, people by and large actually like having a working government and aren't interested in the GOP's culture war bullshit. Also, as was pointed out two posts above, this time the troops wouldn't have gotten paid and that's really not a good idea in any circumstances, but especially now with the country involved in three wars. A shutdown would essentially have automatically reelected Obama the same way the 1995 shutdown did for Clinton. Avoiding that was the only way to preserve the GOP's chances for 2012, which means he had no choice but to agree to anything to keep the government up and running. And Boehner's going to be facing the same unpalatable menu come next year's budget fight over the debt ceiling. Plus he will now have even less influence over the teabaggers than he had going into this unnecessary pissing contest and they will be nothing but an ongoing headache for him from now until 2012. Boehner is fucked. His legislative agenda is essentially reduced to sniping at the margins until it comes crunch time when he'll have to sign onto another deal or be tagged as the man who crashed the country. He's going to end up wishing he had never even heard of the speakership.