US government Shutdown

[TimothyC]

<Snip>

Fine, I'll drop it.

EDIT: And NOM is very much a political organization that used to solicit donations as a 501(c)3 organization claiming that all their donations are tax deductible. How fucking dishonest can you be? But I suppose it should be expected when their entire focus is based on selling invidious lies.

The fundamental point is that the disclosure of the NOM donor list was in violation of federal law, and there have been no heads rolling. Were it a liberal group that was placed at a disadvantage due to a disclosure the members of this community would be up in arms. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

And Obama is also trying to do the same thing. The administration has stated that they wanted to make the sequester painful to lock in the huge budgets.

The sequester was supposed to be painful to force Congress to come to some kind of resolution of the budget. Unfortunately it didn't work.[/quote]Yep, it didn't work because no one wanted to come to the table and give anything up. The Tea Party doesn't want a new entitlement program to take hold (look how hard it is to adjust Social Security to make it solvent indefinitely) and Obama doesn't want his one legacy law to die before he leaves office.

As far as I'm concerned, if the House Republicans want to force the US government to make bricks without straw (or, in this case, money), then Obama is under no obligation to gather straw on their behalf. If Republicans will not make the effort to minimize harm resulting from a government shutdown, they cannot expect that Democrats will minimize those harms for them.

Obama had to make the cuts painful or there would be questions about "Why do these organizations budget so much money that we can cut their funding and still get all of our services?"

[Wonders if this whole 'we hate taxes' minarcho-capitalist may have backfired on the Republicans by deliberately antagonizing any American who wants anything to do with tax collection, but that is my shoulder-devil talking]

You know my opinions on the internal problems in the GOP - I think that there are serious infighting issues that Bush was able to paper over, and I hope they get fixed prior to any issues with the ACA coming to a head in 10 months and giving the GOP larger majorities in the House and a solid chance at a majority in the Senate.

[Pre-post-edit: That is to say, I think problems with the ACA are going to happen, and I think that the Democrats will take the blame for them. I want the GOP to get it's shit together now to take full advantage of the blame, and to get good footing for the 2016 race because it's possible for the GOP to make big wins in 2014 but still stumble in 2016 because of the deeper issues.]

Is it fraud if you lie to people in hopes that they will be stupid enough to believe you and fail to vote for your opponent? Because that's definitely "deception for personal gain," which is a good working definition of fraud.

I just don't see it rising to the same level of fraudulent activity as the major misconduct in the Steven's case.

Would that have a salutary effect on the problem, or would it be a pointless gesture?

It sounds to me like you're looking for an excuse to blame anyone but the hostage-takers for the present crisis. Hell, if we can't get the House to agree to keep the government functioning, how do you expect anyone to get them to agree to a specific budget that would keep the government functioning in an organized fashion?

It's more of a "We'll let you keep it functioning for now, but you have to give this one thing up for a while."

3. Chief Justice Roberts can rule whatever he likes, there are 8 other Justices on the Supreme Court, and he has to get at least 4 others to agree with him before his rulings become law.

I strongly suggest you review the results of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius where Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinions for the court in all cases (he was the fifth vote in all of the parts of the ruling - ergo . The breakdown on some of them was very weird (The Medicaid expansion was 3 (for allowing the expansion, but letting states keep existing money)-2(letting congress withhold money for the existing program)-4(striking the whole thing down). The Individual mandate was struck down on commerce clause reasons by Roberts and the four conservative justices while upheld on the basis of the taxing power with a concurring (in part) opinion issued by Gingsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan (whom argued that it was legal under both the power to tax and the power to regulate economic inactivity).

[Zed Snardbody]

Strange, I thought the TSA was being payed, that they were considered "essential services". I know the NSA is still at work spying on americans because they are considered "essential".

They're considered essential and required to report, like CBP and air traffic control. Pay is delayed until the next CR/Budget, whatever they decide to pass. The joy of being essential, I'm basically earning what will be back pay eventually. If that makes sense.

[Purple]

http://www.examiner.com/article/obamaca ... e-approval

Just in case there was still anyone left that doesn't believe conservatives live in complete la-la land where 2 + 2 = purple:

I resent that.

[Grumman]

Strange, I thought the TSA was being payed, that they were considered "essential services". I know the NSA is still at work spying on americans because they are considered "essential".

Unsurprising, but still disappointing. When you start committing felonies to cover up the fact that you're not doing your job right, that's a pretty clear sign that you need to go.

[Simon_Jester]

The fundamental point is that the disclosure of the NOM donor list was in violation of federal law, and there have been no heads rolling. Were it a liberal group that was placed at a disadvantage due to a disclosure the members of this community would be up in arms. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

I'd argue that there are two separate fundamental points here.

1) Disclosure of donor lists is, yes, in violation of federal law, et cetera.

2) NOM is so blatantly a political organization that no one with any sense can assert with a straight face that their main mission isn't to influence election results.

The sequester was supposed to be painful to force Congress to come to some kind of resolution of the budget. Unfortunately it didn't work.

Yep, it didn't work because no one wanted to come to the table and give anything up. The Tea Party doesn't want a new entitlement program to take hold (look how hard it is to adjust Social Security to make it solvent indefinitely) and Obama doesn't want his one legacy law to die before he leaves office.

Given that the popular support for something like Obamacare has been in place for a very long time, and that it passed with substantial majorities in both houses of Congress at the time it was voted in... how do I say this...

Think about the mindset involved on the Democrats' side. There are a lot of things many Democrats think need to be reformed about the country. In 2006 and 2008 they won massive electoral victories, with a sitting Republican president who had an approval rating in the 30s replaced by a guy whose campaign slogan was "hope and change."

That would seem to signal a popular mandate to, y'know, change a few things. Things that would not immediately dry up and blow away. Like how, say, the Republicans in '94 were able to get major tax cuts and major changes to how welfare works and those did not go away. Certainly not immediately.

As far as I'm concerned, if the House Republicans want to force the US government to make bricks without straw (or, in this case, money), then Obama is under no obligation to gather straw on their behalf. If Republicans will not make the effort to minimize harm resulting from a government shutdown, they cannot expect that Democrats will minimize those harms for them.

Obama had to make the cuts painful or there would be questions about "Why do these organizations budget so much money that we can cut their funding and still get all of our services?"

Yes. And the answer to that question would be "under the hood, we stopped doing important things to keep the machine going, which are not immediately visible to you, looking at the machine from outside."

Imagine a manufacturing corporation that shuts down its legal, human resources, and information technology departments due to an arbitrary, sequester-like mandate to reduce expenses. For a while, everything will appear to be all right. Then things start going to crap- the consequences of the missing departments won't appear until later, even though they're obvious to us sitting in armchairs and thinking about the problem. Because no large company can survive indefinitely without someone maintaining its computers, vetting new hires and tracking staff, or serving as its legal counsel.

Since as far as anyone can tell the sequester cuts are permanent or nearly so, that kind of outcome is not acceptable for someone who wants the government to be able to function in the long run. And yet that is exactly what would happen if the sequester cuts hit and everyone scrambled to say "okay, how can we make these cuts without directly visible consequences to the public?"

If you give people 10% or 15% less money, you should expect at least a 10% or so decline in the quality, quantity, or range of services they provide you in return. It's simple common sense. You cannot just blindly assume that there must be a secret reserve of 'fat' in the budget that Bush somehow missed, money that just inexplicably... does nothing, and can be not-spent without consequences.

[Wonders if this whole 'we hate taxes' minarcho-capitalist may have backfired on the Republicans by deliberately antagonizing any American who wants anything to do with tax collection, but that is my shoulder-devil talking]

You know my opinions on the internal problems in the GOP - I think that there are serious infighting issues that Bush was able to paper over, and I hope they get fixed prior to any issues with the ACA coming to a head in 10 months and giving the GOP larger majorities in the House and a solid chance at a majority in the Senate.

Maybe the serious infighting would be less of a problem if the party weren't trying to maintain such iron, lockstep discipline that 'moderate' Republican congressmen find themselves 'forced' to vote so as to back up complete nutjobs.

[Pre-post-edit: That is to say, I think problems with the ACA are going to happen, and I think that the Democrats will take the blame for them. I want the GOP to get it's shit together now to take full advantage of the blame, and to get good footing for the 2016 race because it's possible for the GOP to make big wins in 2014 but still stumble in 2016 because of the deeper issues.]

I think if the Republicans keep trying to forcibly derail the ACA by dynamiting the government, they will be putting themselves in line to take the blame, because it will be so stupidly easy to point to this kind of idiotic, destroy-at-all-costs obstructionism and say "how much easier would it have been to get this done right if we'd been able to spend all the time spent brawling over the debt ceiling and howling over government shutdowns and... use it to fine-tune Obamacare?"

If you spend two to four years doing literally nothing but trying to sabotage a program, do not be surprised if people blame you when it fails.

Would that have a salutary effect on the problem, or would it be a pointless gesture?

It sounds to me like you're looking for an excuse to blame anyone but the hostage-takers for the present crisis. Hell, if we can't get the House to agree to keep the government functioning, how do you expect anyone to get them to agree to a specific budget that would keep the government functioning in an organized fashion?

It's more of a "We'll let you keep it functioning for now, but you have to give this one thing up for a while."

Yes, and that is being unilaterally imposed by a small clique in the House. Why is "we get to decide whether the government continues to function, and we won't do it unless you suspend this program we don't like" a more reasonable stance than "the government must continue to function, ideology be damned, if you want to negotiate modifications to Obamacare than negotiate, by putting things on the table that are palatable, instead of just making threats."

3. Chief Justice Roberts can rule whatever he likes, there are 8 other Justices on the Supreme Court, and he has to get at least 4 others to agree with him before his rulings become law.

I strongly suggest you review the results of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius where Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinions for the court in all cases (he was the fifth vote in all of the parts of the ruling - ergo . The breakdown on some of them was very weird (The Medicaid expansion was 3 (for allowing the expansion, but letting states keep existing money)-2(letting congress withhold money for the existing program)-4(striking the whole thing down). The Individual mandate was struck down on commerce clause reasons by Roberts and the four conservative justices while upheld on the basis of the taxing power with a concurring (in part) opinion issued by Gingsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan (whom argued that it was legal under both the power to tax and the power to regulate economic inactivity).[/quote]The fundamental point here is that Doctor Whatsisname argues as if there's no one else on the Court except Roberts, and as if the Supreme Court had actually said "the ACA can't go through." When in fact, if they'd wanted to say that, they would have, y'know, said so.

[Simon_Jester]

Strange, I thought the TSA was being payed, that they were considered "essential services". I know the NSA is still at work spying on americans because they are considered "essential".

They're considered essential and required to report, like CBP and air traffic control. Pay is delayed until the next CR/Budget, whatever they decide to pass. The joy of being essential, I'm basically earning what will be back pay eventually. If that makes sense.

So, it's the difference between being furloughed without promise of back pay, and being kept on the job whether you like it or not with promise of back pay if you're essential?

And yeah, I can see how a lot of the actual checkpoint-staffing minion types aren't going to put up with that for very long. People with more specialized or less shitty jobs might be willing to wait around for several weeks hoping their job will start paying them again. People who staff a booth or watch a screen for a living probably aren't getting rewarded well enough to give them an incentive to put up with that.

[Which is a commentary on how we treat low-end labor. Sort of like how if you beat your dog, you can't expect it to be waiting for you eagerly when you get home.]

[Dominus Atheos]

Strange, I thought the TSA was being payed, that they were considered "essential services". I know the NSA is still at work spying on americans because they are considered "essential".

They're considered essential and required to report, like CBP and air traffic control. Pay is delayed until the next CR/Budget, whatever they decide to pass. The joy of being essential, I'm basically earning what will be back pay eventually. If that makes sense.

So, it's the difference between being furloughed without promise of back pay, and being kept on the job whether you like it or not with promise of back pay if you're essential?

That is different to my understanding. I was under the impression that:

1. The NSA and TSA and other "essential" employees would receive paychecks as per normal

2. The military wouldn't be payed but they'd have to work while being entitled to back pay, and

3. Everyone else was furloughed and isn't working, and wouldn't be entitled to back pay for the days they didn't work.

AFAIK even the government (except enlisted soldiers) can't force people to work without pay. Once again, this is only As Far As I Know, but labor laws don't make exceptions for government employees.

[Irbis]

So, out of curiosity, how it affects USA abroad? Embassies are government agency too, no? How about contractors in espionage and military bases? Do they stop work, too?

If this were happening in a parliamentary country, this is when we might have the head of state step in, dissolve the Government, and declare new elections because the current Government clearly is not working.

Yeah, this is exactly how it would work in Germany or Poland - if government can't pass a budget, it's declared impotent and new election is called. Ironically, here, budget gets always passed even if opposition doesn't quite like it - precisely because quite a lot of MPs would lose their jobs in the following blame (last time budget failed, in 1993, it was total earthquake that saw hundreds of MPs lose their seats, to be fair it was also caused by introduction of 5% popular vote parliament entry bar and big shift in public opinion).

That doesn't mean opposition can't cause a crisis - it's just it is usually 'social' crisis, not 'economic' policy one, like recent total abortion ban debate proposed by insane right wingers. It's far easier for Prime Minister to call for unified party vote on financial policy than in social one - if he would try all right wing press would howl about "gagging of conscience"

But as I understand it, the primaries are like a pre-election to determine who will stand for a certain position for a certain party, right? So these so-called moderates are vying in their own electorates with Tea Party candidates who presumably are considerably farther to the right of them. But then the question becomes, how moderate can you really be in a district like that? Are they really moderate, or is their presumed moderation just an electoral trick to garner moderate votes, i.e. 'thank god I'm not that nutter next door'?

What you don't get is the fact that people who bother to show up to these aren't average voters. They are usually die-hard people bent on seeing their issue pass, even if guy they pick is going to be crushed in real election. That's how nutjobs from NRA or Tea Party can push their vomit down the party's throat, because they can mobilize small but devoted groups big enough to skew primaries.

That makes me wonder: could those moderate Republicans not simply have broken party rank? I'm not privy to the details of US governance but to me the sentiment that a small group of crazy ideologues can hold the federal government hostage by threatening to shut the whole shebang down every few months is confusing.

Another detail you miss is gerrymandering. Republithugs carved electoral districts on the map even an ape could win in some of these - and party controls who is on ballot and gives candidates ad money to run. Even without primaries, anyone who breaks the rank will be kicked out simply by one decision of party leaders.

[Crossroads Inc.]

It looks like more people on the right are waking up to the level of Crazy that the Tea Party people represent.
I found the following this morning on a Conservative website written by a far right columnist who in no way, is normally known for being a Liberal...

When you write a column, you hear from people who think they have a clever magic-wand solution to intractable political issues. Washington has run up $17 trillion of debt? Pass term limits. Throw the bums out. Take away their pensions.

Sure, these ideas sound as if they might help, and it must feel good to propose something , but they ignore the entrenched forces that created these morasses in the first place. In a swamp that requires hard-nosed solutions, these folks instead have faith in what is known in political parlance as "shiny objects."

The shiny-object-mongers have taken over the House GOP caucus. They think that gimmicks can overcome basic math and that with the right tactic, they can win a political battle without controlling either the White House or the Senate.

They repeatedly have tried to defund Obamacare; they repeatedly haven't had the votes in the Senate.
Then they added defunding Obamacare to a bill to keep the government running; they still didn't have the votes in the Senate.
Then they stuck a one-year delay of Obamacare's individual mandate on the spending continuing resolution. Guess what. They didn't have the votes in the Senate.

These antics did win House Republicans a government shutdown. Too bad; the "Republican shutdown" is what President Barack Obama and Democratic leaders wanted all along. GOP dysfunction is their shiny object that distracts voters from their inability to fix the U.S. economy.

There is a bit more to the article, but it mostly goes into why she thinks that this is the wrong way to fight the evils of Obamacare and such.
For me I find it surprising that anyone on the right is waking up to just how damaging the Tea Party has become to America.

[Borgholio]

Montana:

•The Bozeman Fish Technology Center, the Bozeman Fish Health Center, the Creston National Fish Hatchery, the hatchery in Ennis and the Montana Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office in Billings all closed.

•Glacier and Yellowstone national parks were closed to visitors. Those already at the parks were told to leave by Thursday.

Glacier is in Alaska and Yellowstone is in Wyoming. Who fact-checked this list?

[Borgholio]

I'm sorry, I couldn't help myself:

http://www.wavsource.com/snds_2013-09-2 ... party2.wav

[TimothyC]

Glacier is in Alaska and Yellowstone is in Wyoming. Who fact-checked this list?

Someone who knows more geography than you do? Glacier is very much in Montana (on the Canadian Border), and Yellowstone does extend into Montana (as well as Idaho).

[Borgholio]

Glacier is in Alaska and Yellowstone is in Wyoming. Who fact-checked this list?

Someone who knows more geography than you do? Glacier is very much in Montana (on the Canadian Border), and Yellowstone does extend into Montana (as well as Idaho).

Whoops, was thinking of Denali. I stand corrected.

Didn't know that about Yellowstone though, I guess it's just the bulk of it that's in Wyoming.

[TimothyC]

I'd argue that there are two separate fundamental points here.

1) Disclosure of donor lists is, yes, in violation of federal law, et cetera.

2) NOM is so blatantly a political organization that no one with any sense can assert with a straight face that their main mission isn't to influence election results.

I fully admit to fixating on the first (as I see it as a fundamental issue relating to trust of the civil service), while a lot of people here see the second as the fundamental issue. This is why I bring up the concept that if this were happening to a group they supported I doubt they would be so nonchalant about it.

Yes. And the answer to that question would be "under the hood, we stopped doing important things to keep the machine going, which are not immediately visible to you, looking at the machine from outside."

Imagine a manufacturing corporation that shuts down its legal, human resources, and information technology departments due to an arbitrary, sequester-like mandate to reduce expenses. For a while, everything will appear to be all right. Then things start going to crap- the consequences of the missing departments won't appear until later, even though they're obvious to us sitting in armchairs and thinking about the problem. Because no large company can survive indefinitely without someone maintaining its computers, vetting new hires and tracking staff, or serving as its legal counsel.

Since as far as anyone can tell the sequester cuts are permanent or nearly so, that kind of outcome is not acceptable for someone who wants the government to be able to function in the long run. And yet that is exactly what would happen if the sequester cuts hit and everyone scrambled to say "okay, how can we make these cuts without directly visible consequences to the public?"

If you give people 10% or 15% less money, you should expect at least a 10% or so decline in the quality, quantity, or range of services they provide you in return. It's simple common sense. You cannot just blindly assume that there must be a secret reserve of 'fat' in the budget that Bush somehow missed, money that just inexplicably... does nothing, and can be not-spent without consequences.

Do remember that the sequester cuts came off of the larger 2009 budget and the sequester cut a total of $85.4 billion of federal outlays (in the first year). The 2009 budget (Bush's last) had $1210 billion in non-mandated expenditures (so this figure does not include interest on the debt, medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Unemployment/Welfare, or SCHIP) while the 2010 budget (Obama's first) for the same class of expenditures was $1378 billion. The 2011 budget saw cuts of about $12 billion, with similar figures for the 2012 budget. All the sequester did was slow the rate of growth. If agencies can't find a way to live inside a growth rate over that of inflation, then we need to have a serious discussion about what our priorities are. And we certainly can't sustain the growth rate of the debt that would be in place with Obama's 2013 budget of $1510 billion. The problem with the sequester was the way in which it was implemented - as an across the board cut to everything rather than allowing the departments to decided where to make the cuts to have the least impact.

Yes, and that is being unilaterally imposed by a small clique in the House. Why is "we get to decide whether the government continues to function, and we won't do it unless you suspend this program we don't like" a more reasonable stance than "the government must continue to function, ideology be damned, if you want to negotiate modifications to Obamacare than negotiate, by putting things on the table that are palatable, instead of just making threats."

Negotiate? We're dealing with an administration that is closing a park that has not received federal funding in decades because it's on federal land, and is preventing DC from spending local funds to stay open - and has refused to pass a bill that would allow DC to do so. This is nothing more than President Barry throwing a fit because he isn't getting his way.

[Justice]

Negotiate? We're dealing with an administration that is closing a park that has not received federal funding in decades because it's on federal land, and is preventing DC from spending local funds to stay open - and has refused to pass a bill that would allow DC to do so. This is nothing more than President Barry throwing a fit because he isn't getting his way.

You really can't blame this on the Democrats when there are enough votes in the House to pass a clean CR, but Republican leadership refuses to put it to a vote. Given the fact that the Republican plan will never pass the Senate and the Democratic one will pass the House, it's clear who is really "throwing a fit".

[Siege]

What you don't get is the fact that people who bother to show up to these aren't average voters. They are usually die-hard people bent on seeing their issue pass, even if guy they pick is going to be crushed in real election. That's how nutjobs from NRA or Tea Party can push their vomit down the party's throat, because they can mobilize small but devoted groups big enough to skew primaries.

Granted, but they can only do that in districts that are already leaning toward the Tea Party. If they're not in a distrct full of nutters, the nutters cannot elect one of their own as their representative -- to say nothing of having that representative actually win a House election in which everyone, not just the crazies, can vote. This is basically my point in a broader context: at some level so-called 'moderate' Republicans are electing crazypeople and/or supporting them to the point where a handful of people can make powerplays like this. So that circles back to my question, how 'moderate' are these people really? Are they moderate only in the sense of not quite as bad as the Tea Party? Because I wouldn't call that 'moderate' myself.

I have to wonder if the 'moderate' Republicans call themselves that simply as a ploy to get more trades out of the Democrats: "I'd love to do business with you Jim but you gotta give me something to feed the crazies". If they don't bite you can torpedo everything they do and blame it on a smattering of ideologues who are conveniently not you, and if they bite you just wring them for more concessions year after year.

[Simon_Jester]

Siege, I think you're probably right.

2) NOM is so blatantly a political organization that no one with any sense can assert with a straight face that their main mission isn't to influence election results.

I fully admit to fixating on the first (as I see it as a fundamental issue relating to trust of the civil service), while a lot of people here see the second as the fundamental issue. This is why I bring up the concept that if this were happening to a group they supported I doubt they would be so nonchalant about it.

The problem is that you originally started by implying that the investigation was wrong. The investigation was NOT wrong, NOM's behavior makes it entirely logical for the IRS to investigate them, because to a casual observer they sure as heck look like a PAC masquerading as a nonprofit.

Then, when people pointed this out to you, you shifted the goalposts and raised the issue of the donor list disclosure. While the donor list disclosure is a legitimate issue in its own right, that does not absolve NOM from responsibility for complying with the rules for nonprofits. Nor does it make NOM exempt from federal auditors.

Put another way: if the police arrest a drug dealer, and there is a scandal because one of the policemen stole some of the drugs and sold them on the black market, that does NOT mean the arrest was wrongful, or does not belong in jail.

Do remember that the sequester cuts came off of the larger 2009 budget and the sequester cut a total of $85.4 billion of federal outlays (in the first year). The 2009 budget (Bush's last) had $1210 billion in non-mandated expenditures (so this figure does not include interest on the debt, medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Unemployment/Welfare, or SCHIP) while the 2010 budget (Obama's first) for the same class of expenditures was $1378 billion. The 2011 budget saw cuts of about $12 billion, with similar figures for the 2012 budget. All the sequester did was slow the rate of growth. If agencies can't find a way to live inside a growth rate over that of inflation, then we need to have a serious discussion about what our priorities are.

Yes, we do. And we should- but instead, we have this endless shit-flinging from the House, because they're so busy declaring war on all nonmilitary spending that we can't actually negotiate intelligently about how to keep costs under control.

If this were a spending issue, rather than a grandstanding issue, then Boehner should have, years ago sent a team to meet with the Senate who were empowered to negotiate this issue like grownups.

Grownups can, for example, seriously consider the notion of raising taxes, on the grounds that this might actually be a more efficient way to get things done.

Grownups don't cancel government spending that has a large multiplier effect on future tax revenues.

Grownups don't threaten to crash and burn the government every time they don't get their way fast enough.

The sequester was a failed attempt to fire a shot across the bows of the non-grownup elements of the Republican Party, and the non-grownup elements of the Democratic Party. In my honest opinion, the non-grownups on the right have relatively much more power than those on the left, and therefore deserve more of the blame.

But the shot across the bows was ignored, and as a result the ship of state has run into something it would be better off not having encountered.

Yes, and that is being unilaterally imposed by a small clique in the House. Why is "we get to decide whether the government continues to function, and we won't do it unless you suspend this program we don't like" a more reasonable stance than "the government must continue to function, ideology be damned, if you want to negotiate modifications to Obamacare than negotiate, by putting things on the table that are palatable, instead of just making threats."

Negotiate? We're dealing with an administration that is closing a park that has not received federal funding in decades because it's on federal land, and is preventing DC from spending local funds to stay open - and has refused to pass a bill that would allow DC to do so. This is nothing more than President Barry throwing a fit because he isn't getting his way.

I repeat, the federal government cannot be responsible for events that occur on federal land, when it cannot effectively police federal land, because the people responsible for doing so aren't getting paid.

Since this shutdown might well continue indefinitely, there is no responsible, effective way to secure the federal lands except to bar random citizens from them.

What will happen if the shutdown goes long enough that the District of Columbia runs out of local funds to keep monuments open? Will the Park Service have to force its employees to work without pay to ensure that the sites close and stay closed? Since they cannot, by law, do that, they must close the sites now, while they have the chance.

And yes, this makes the shutdown more inconvenient for Americans than it might be in theory. If we had some kind of guarantee that the shutdown would not last more than a week, perhaps, I would be all for allowing DC to keep the monuments open at its own expense... as long as big honking posters went up saying "THIS MONUMENT KEPT OPEN AT LOCAL EXPENSE WHEN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REFUSED TO PAY FOR IT" or something.

But since it may go on indefinitely, the only way for the federal government to act as responsible custodians of federal property is to close that property. If you don't like it, consider that this is only one of many responsibilities the federal government can't carry out without a budget, which it is legally mandated to carry out, and that all of these responsibilities are severely compromised during a shutdown.

Perhaps, if you do not want closure of the federal government to lead to closure of the national parks, you should not make preserving the national parks a federal responsibility. Do you think it would be practical, responsible, or appropriate to cede the National Mall to the city of Washington, and let the government which gave us Marion Barry take care of it, instead of the larger government that gave us the other Barry you affect to despise?

Do you think the state of Utah would preserve the state parks within its borders adequately? Are Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho likely to form a coalition of responsible states willing and able to adequately fund the preservation of Yellowstone?

Because if you object to the parks being closed when the government is closed, that strikes me as the only obvious alternative. Since these are states which have trouble keeping the streets from eroding into gravel (DC) and the state government quasi-adequately funded for critical functions... I'm skeptical.

[Forgothrax]

Granted, but they can only do that in districts that are already leaning toward the Tea Party. If they're not in a distrct full of nutters, the nutters cannot elect one of their own as their representative -- to say nothing of having that representative actually win a House election in which everyone, not just the crazies, can vote. This is basically my point in a broader context: at some level so-called 'moderate' Republicans are electing crazypeople and/or supporting them to the point where a handful of people can make powerplays like this. So that circles back to my question, how 'moderate' are these people really? Are they moderate only in the sense of not quite as bad as the Tea Party? Because I wouldn't call that 'moderate' myself.

While I don't have stats for Congressional primaries directly, here are some stats for the 2012 Presidential Primary. In many states, turnout for the Presidential Primaries was around 10-20%-- and this is the Presidential race, the one everyone knows about and talks about. I would anticipate that Congressional turnout would be the same or lower... and FiveThirtyEight supports that hypothesis here.

When turnout for a primary is that low, even a relatively small percentage of "nutters" can heavily influence a vote. All the Tea Party has to do is turn out its base and influence enough people to swing 6-7% of the voting-eligible population to their side and get them to the polls, and they can swamp a moderate candidate fairly easily.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

EDIT: And NOM is very much a political organization that used to solicit donations as a 501(c)3 organization claiming that all their donations are tax deductible. How fucking dishonest can you be? But I suppose it should be expected when their entire focus is based on selling invidious lies.

The fundamental point is that the disclosure of the NOM donor list was in violation of federal law, and there have been no heads rolling. Were it a liberal group that was placed at a disadvantage due to a disclosure the members of this community would be up in arms. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Your fundamental point is that NOM is being legally treated unfairly and not that a federal law was violated. Because if you gave a shit about law violations, you wouldn't have so easily glossed over the fact that they violated multiple financial disclosure laws in multiple states on top of disingenuously labeling themselves a 501(c)3/4 organization. The fact that you brought up the idea of a liberal group being treated differently is a strong implication that your point is about "fairness" and not the rule of law. And as far as that's concerned, you're right in that (in the large scope of things) NOM has been treated unfairly; they've been given free passes way too often.

[Siege]

When turnout for a primary is that low, even a relatively small percentage of "nutters" can heavily influence a vote. All the Tea Party has to do is turn out its base and influence enough people to swing 6-7% of the voting-eligible population to their side and get them to the polls, and they can swamp a moderate candidate fairly easily.

Yes, I suppose that in the end it's a little of everything. Divide up districts in such a fashion that your party is more likely to be elected, inadvertently encourage drift to the right in those districts, keep the loonie fringe around as a party because they're a convenient bogeyman when you wrangle your political opponent for concessions, then your opponent tells you to stuff it and before you know it you've shut down the government and shit son, now what?

Out of curiosity, how long can this shutdown silliness go on? Weeks? Months? What's the record time on it? 'Cause at some point presumably someone has to collate the taxes and do some diplomacy and keep the FBI chugging and the chicken soup dispensers on USS Nimitz filled, and that stuff don't pay for itself.

[Forgothrax]

Three weeks, 1995-1996, is the longest one in the past 40 years.

[Simon_Jester]

Basically, the longer it goes on, the greater the pressure on Congress becomes. At some point, the Republicans most closely associated with the shutdown will fear a primary challenge from the left* ("you idiot, you blew it all to hell!") more than from the right* ("how could you back down you coward!").

At least, that's what happened last time. But then, last time the dynamic was different- it was the Republican leadership actively spearheading that shutdown, and I'm pretty sure Newt Gingrich was seriously trying to actually play a role in running the country. By contrast, the Tea Party Republicans are very nearly trolling America instead of trying to run it- they will rationalize almost any amount of damage done to the government's ability to govern as being all to the good, because they're basically anarcho-capitalists.

*within their own party

[Broomstick]

Negotiate? We're dealing with an administration that is closing a park that has not received federal funding in decades because it's on federal land, and is preventing DC from spending local funds to stay open - and has refused to pass a bill that would allow DC to do so.

Hey, fuckwit - the President can't sign the bill until it passes BOTH the House and Senate. Why aren't you whining about the Senate blocking the bills, or are you so intent on your partisan bias that it has escaped your notice that the Senate hasn't passed jack so there's nothing for the PotUS to sign or veto?

This is nothing more than President Barry throwing a fit because he isn't getting his way.

Seems to me it's mostly Congress throwing a fit, and no one here is impressed or amused at calling the PotUS "Barry".

[Knife]

I laugh hardily when I heard the Republicans talk about how the Democrats 'have shut down the government'. If only there were some way to record the Republicans over the last few years and how they've been over and over again saying they want to shut down the government... oh wait;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeu7Iuz-vKY

[Terralthra]

Negotiate? We're dealing with an administration that is closing a park that has not received federal funding in decades because it's on federal land, and is preventing DC from spending local funds to stay open - and has refused to pass a bill that would allow DC to do so.

Hey, fuckwit - the President can't sign the bill until it passes BOTH the House and Senate. Why aren't you whining about the Senate blocking the bills, or are you so intent on your partisan bias that it has escaped your notice that the Senate hasn't passed jack so there's nothing for the PotUS to sign or veto?

Senate's passed several bills as amended and sent back to the House. The House hasn't voted on any of them.