US government Shutdown

[TimothyC]

That someone who supports the House Republicans - the group that voted to overturn ACA 42 times, knowing that it would not pass the Senate, and that it would be vetoed if it did - would accuse anyone else of "political theatre" is hilarious.

Of course it was political theatre, and it was theatre that played well to the base of the party.

Now that I mocked your bullshit: the Republican budget is 3.70 trillion, while the Democrat budget is 3.77 trillion. It exceeds the Republican budget by 70 billion, which is roughly 2% of its total sum, or 1.89% of it to be more precise. So you tell me that the Republicans put the price of the United States of America at about 2% of disagreement. I know you're totally lacking in self-awareness, but that's not a charming thing to admit.

No, those are the Senate budgets ($3700 billion) and Obama's proposed budget ($3770 billion). The House budget is only $3500 billion.

Simon got a lot of what I honestly think correct. I want to remind everyone that I don't agree with the track that has been taken by the house leadership, and I blame both senators Cruz & Reid as well as the President for the impasse. I don't want to see the federal government shutdown, and I certainly don't want to see the debt limit hit. I do however tend toward the republican side that the democrats (Reid and Obama) haven't done enough - and the only restrictions that I would place on the debt ceiling vote in the house is that Obama has to deliver a majority of the democrats in the house for the vote, and he and Reid have to agree to sit down and have serious, substantive discussions on the Budget. Only after those negotiations are started should any sort of CR go forward. My personal position on the ACA is to allow individuals to get exemptions from the individual mandate (leaving the exchanges in place, as if it's such a good deal, then people will join the exchanges voluntarily) until such time as the congressional aides lose their exemption and the administration reverses it's policy in delaying the employer mandate. That's what I think should happen. I also think that we need to get the budget down to FY2008 levels at the most, and then get indexed to inflation. Paired with an optimization of the tax code that would be the serious debt reduction that we need to do now before it is too late.

That is what I think, and unfortunately, the closest anyone in congress is getting to my position is the republicans (the democrats have shown zero interest in actually fixing the deficit beyond 'tax the rich', which based on returns from historic taxation levels isn't going to be what works).

As a side note, Fish and Wildlife has re-opened the waterfowl hunting areas in North Dakota.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Capitulates to North Dakota's Call for Public Land Access
October 11, 2013

BISMARCK, N.D. – The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has agreed to reopen more than 288,000 acres of wildlife lands in North Dakota that have been closed to public access since the federal government shutdown began on October 1.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Director Dan Ashe announced the reopening of Wildlife Service lands nationwide late today after he was informed of North Dakota’s intent to file a complaint in U.S. District Court. The complaint, already completed and within minutes of being filed, requested a federal judge require the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to reopen more than 288,000 acres of wildlife lands closed to hunters and other public uses.

Gov. Jack Dalrymple and Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem, in talks with U.S. Fish and Wildlife officials, said they were prepared to file the complaint at 3pm today. Just minutes before 3pm, U.S. Fish and Wildlife officials said they would reopen the wildlife lands nationwide.

“These Waterfowl Production Areas are an important part of North Dakota’s outdoor experience and the law is very clear that a government shutdown is not a legal justification to close these unstaffed, public lands,” Gov. Dalrymple said. “We are pleased that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agreed to reopen these lands in time for North Dakota’s opening day of pheasant hunting.

“The Fish and Wildlife Service’s attempt to prohibit access to the wide outdoors was clearly contrary to law, which assures these areas are to be open to hunters and anglers,” Stenehjem said. “I am delighted that Fish and Wildlife Service has agreed to end the confusion, and to allow our sportsmen to enjoy a successful hunting season.”

In the complaint, Dalrymple and Stenehjem said the closures are unnecessary and unwarranted because the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service does not, under normal conditions, maintain full-time staff on the lands and because there are no additional public safety or management issues created by keeping the lands open. Dalrymple and Stenehjem said the law allows closure only in exceptional circumstances, none of which are present.

On Tuesday, the state also sent a letter to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe, voicing the same arguments in urging him to reopen the state’s Waterfowl Production Areas.

[Lord MJ]

That is what I think, and unfortunately, the closest anyone in congress is getting to my position is the republicans (the democrats have shown zero interest in actually fixing the deficit beyond 'tax the rich', which based on returns from historic taxation levels isn't going to be what works).

This despite the fact that the deficit has been cut in half since Obama's first year. The fact that the main driver of the the shoot up in the deficit between 2008 and 2009 has been the great recession and then the hangover after the recession. And the fact that the drop in the deficit corresponds with the recovery (greater revenues and also less expenditures helping the unemployed.)

This also despite the fact that the Dems proposals are now below the original GOP proposals from 3 years ago.

This also despite the fact that Obama's main goal for his "legacy" is to do the "Grand Bargain" which would consist of mostly GOP leaning mechanisms to lower the deficit. And more than likely the end result being any policies favored by Democrats being stripped out in the end. Obama would push such a thing, much to the ire of many Dems, if the GOP would stop fighting with him.

It would seem intuitive to me that ANY plan to reduce the deficit has to start with reversing the situation where the recovery seems to be helping people at the top while the middle and lower class not so much. If they start to share in the recovery, it's less cost supporting the unemployed and greater revenue not only from newly employed workers, but downstream revenue from businesses and others who have increased sales from more people spending money.

More importantly, ANY plan to reduce the deficit has to take a serious look at what changed from when we had budget surpluses and when our deficit started to run up. Even if it's too late to flip the switch to reverse that change, any honest assessment on how to fix the deficit has to start there. I have yet to see any of that take place within the government. And until that happens I view that most Republicans are not really serious about the deficit, they are only bringing it up as "things we can throw at Obama and the Dems."

[Lord MJ]

Obama is pretty conservative regarding dealing with the deficit. The main differences between him and the GOP on this issue is first Obama is simply more of the mature adult in the room regarding talking about fiscal issues, than the GOP that taking the tactic of throwing a tantrum about spending (once again it's more of "Here's stuff we can throw at the Obama and the Dems and score points" rather than being serious about spending.) Second, Obama doesn't have the "No taxes under any circumstances" take. And third, some amount of stimulus and investment in our infrastructure is needed, though he would rather gleefully cave on that last point as part of any "Grand Bargain."

[Grumman]

As an Australian, I sit here in Down-Underland with my jaw on the ground over the way in which this has played out. I have no skin in the game, but to me, the Republicans are insane. Simply, utterly insane. UHC is a good thing guys, it really is.

Not all UHC is equal.

An anecdote. I managed to contract a UTI which presented on a Sunday evening a few weeks back...yeah, not pleasant

- Visit to emergency room: $0
- 14 day course of antibiotics: around $20
- 1st GP followup for something to stop the burning: $0
- 2nd GP followup to check on urinalysis results : $0
- different set of antibiotics due to said urinalysis: around $20
- ultrasound appointment after antibiotics were done: $0
- 3rd GP followup to check on ultrasound: $0

So, a grand total spent of around $40 Aussie dollars. I do have "private health insurance", but that only covers for actually getting hospitalized. Everything here was courtesy of Australia's Medicare and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, especially as the 2nd set of antibiotics would apparently been ungodly expensive otherwise.

You are still paying for all these things. Single payer health insurance might be - and should be - cheaper, but don't mistake that for being free.

Oh, and TimC you're an idiot. You are a perfect example of a person who's supporting something that only seeks to bend you over and violate you for as long and as hard as it can, while both it and you are saying, "This is great!".

"Something" like the insurance companies, who now have the Democrats as an enforcer, making it mandatory that people do business with these scumbags? At the very least, they should have got rid of the idiotic WWII-era idea that only employer-sponsored health insurance should be tax deductible, to make it cheaper to starve the worst of them to extinction by switching insurers.

[Terralthra]

Please do not conflate health care and health insurance. Single payer is a health care system, not a health insurance system.

[Simon_Jester]

That is what I think, and unfortunately, the closest anyone in congress is getting to my position is the republicans (the democrats have shown zero interest in actually fixing the deficit beyond 'tax the rich', which based on returns from historic taxation levels isn't going to be what works).

This despite the fact... [snip list of facts and things that so far as I know are both true and significant]

The Republican Party, and its congressional delegation in particular, might well have this charge thrown at them.

Since TimothyC has already expressed rather negative feelings about them, I can sort of see where this comes from. I think the problem is that both TimothyC (from his remarks) and President Obama (from his) would prefer to see Democrats and Republicans actually negotiate a resolution to America's budget issues in a mature way.

But congressional Republicans don't consistently want that- some want it, but others would rather posture in hopes that sabotaging things will allow their party to dominate the 2014-16 elections and push through their whole agenda at once a few years down the line.

Obama reacts to congressional Republicans who refuse to negotiate the budget maturely by saying "fuck off." TimothyC reacts by criticizing Obama for saying "fuck off."

I honestly would like to see TimothyC's response to the evidence others cite that the Republicans have persistently refused to act in ways compatible with long term, stable negotiations. Because I think that serious negotiations are the one place where he and everyone else here would prefer to see the same thing.

[Dominus Atheos]

Uh...no, it's definitely a type of health insurance, not health care.

[Lord MJ]

Obama reacts to congressional Republicans who refuse to negotiate the budget maturely by saying "fuck off." TimothyC reacts by criticizing Obama for saying "fuck off."

I would say 2 years ago. Obama was more than willing to deal with the GOP even if they weren't negotiating maturely.

Today? I think his attitude to the whole thing is "I'm sick of this shit!" And you know what, I can't say I blame him in the slightest for having that attitude.

[Grumman]

Please do not conflate health care and health insurance. Single payer is a health care system, not a health insurance system.

Your understanding of the situation is wrong. Both single payer and private health insurance operate on the same level: as a middle-man modifying how the end user pays for treatment. The health care provider is a completely different entity, who gets paid either directly by the end user, indirectly by an insurer with money taken as premiums or indirectly by the government with money taken as taxes.

[JME2]

Obama reacts to congressional Republicans who refuse to negotiate the budget maturely by saying "fuck off." TimothyC reacts by criticizing Obama for saying "fuck off."

I would say 2 years ago. Obama was more than willing to deal with the GOP even if they weren't negotiating maturely.

Today? I think his attitude to the whole thing is "I'm sick of this shit!" And you know what, I can't say I blame him in the slightest for having that attitude.

Yeah, I'd have the same exact same attitude after four years of dealing with this insanity.

[energiewende]

Please do not conflate health care and health insurance. Single payer is a health care system, not a health insurance system.

Your understanding of the situation is wrong. Both single payer and private health insurance operate on the same level: as a middle-man modifying how the end user pays for treatment. The health care provider is a completely different entity, who gets paid either directly by the end user, indirectly by an insurer with money taken as premiums or indirectly by the government with money taken as taxes.

Insurance is a hedge against risk. Single payer isn't a hedge against risk; it pays for everyone regardless of their contributions to the system. Calling single payer healthcare an insurance system is as meaningful as calling unemployment payments "food insurance".

--

As for apportioning blame, again, there is no meaningful distinction between the two positions. The Senate wants to appropriate some money and the House does not. Constitutionally the agreement of both is required to appropriate that money. If every appropriation had been voted on separately, then the Republicans would get everything they want (no shutdown and no Obamacare funding). The fact that everything must be agreed or nothing may be agreed actually favours the Democrats here, so they're on shaky ground trying to argue that the Senate's position is somehow the natural one that the House must bow to even if it disagrees. Obama's opinion is constitutionally irrelevant (although Biden's could, in rare circumstances, have some relevance).

[Simon_Jester]

Energiewende, what you are willfully overlooking here is that history didn't begin yesterday. The ACA was passed into law by the normal processes of the legislature, after a very protracted period of debate and negotiations. And repeated attempts to repeal it have failed.

At some point, for any kind of lawful government to function, we have to be able to say "this act of the government is no longer subject to debate, it is enforceable law, and will be backed by the full resources of the government until such time as the voters choose to signal their displeasure by changing the party in power."

How absurd would it have been if a Democratic legislature in 2001 had held the government hostage in an attempt to repeal the 1996 welfare reforms? At what point does the opposition have to say "okay, we lost this round, at least for now" and let the law be enforced?

Because if the answer is "never," then there is no possibility of ever having effective government.

However, if the answer is "eventually," then the congressional Republicans' position is most unreasonable. They are essentially using this as a gambit to force repeal or rollback of a law they have tried to repeal forty times by normal means, without success. A law they succeeded in holding up in the Senate for months while changes were made to make it more appealing to the American center-right.

You cannot simplify this to "they want a law not in place, the other side wants it in place, these are symmetrical positions."

[PainRack]

Insurance is a hedge against risk. Single payer isn't a hedge against risk; it pays for everyone regardless of their contributions to the system. Calling single payer healthcare an insurance system is as meaningful as calling unemployment payments "food insurance".

Ah..... No.
Unemployment insurance, which is how its termed in some socialist countries is insurance against the risks of you being unemployed/being fired. The difference is that the payment is based off society rather than the individual .
And it makes more sense too because no commercial entity will be able to hedge against the risk of you being unemployed, but collectively, society can .The fact that you're still able to pay your bills and be a potentially useful member of society in the future is a net collective benefit for society(most of the time).

The fact that everything must be agreed or nothing may be agreed actually favours the Democrats here, so they're on shaky ground trying to argue that the Senate's position is somehow the natural one that the House must bow to even if it disagrees. Obama's opinion is constitutionally irrelevant (although Biden's could, in rare circumstances, have some relevance).

Dude. I know EXPLICITLY that Reid has offerred the House Republicans such a clean resolution before. Fund the government, let's talk about Obamacare later. But the House has REFUSED.

[energiewende]

Energiewende, what you are willfully overlooking here is that history didn't begin yesterday. The ACA was passed into law by the normal processes of the legislature, after a very protracted period of debate and negotiations. And repeated attempts to repeal it have failed.

At some point, for any kind of lawful government to function, we have to be able to say "this act of the government is no longer subject to debate, it is enforceable law, and will be backed by the full resources of the government until such time as the voters choose to signal their displeasure by changing the party in power."

The shutdown only affects discretionary spending which is spending that is specifically not provided for in the legislation that has already been passed. The voters did change the party in power: ACA was passed when the Democrats controlled both houses and now they only control the Senate.

How absurd would it have been if a Democratic legislature in 2001 had held the government hostage in an attempt to repeal the 1996 welfare reforms? At what point does the opposition have to say "okay, we lost this round, at least for now" and let the law be enforced?

Because if the answer is "never," then there is no possibility of ever having effective government.

However, if the answer is "eventually," then the congressional Republicans' position is most unreasonable. They are essentially using this as a gambit to force repeal or rollback of a law they have tried to repeal forty times by normal means, without success. A law they succeeded in holding up in the Senate for months while changes were made to make it more appealing to the American center-right.

You cannot simplify this to "they want a law not in place, the other side wants it in place, these are symmetrical positions."

To repeal the law they would need the agreement of both houses whereas to refuse discretionary appropriations they only need one house. The fact that a bill has not been repeal does not mean that all discretionary spending desired by an agency it creates must be provided - otherwise there would be no such thing as discretionary spending.

[Simon_Jester]

The shutdown only affects discretionary spending which is spending that is specifically not provided for in the legislation that has already been passed. The voters did change the party in power: ACA was passed when the Democrats controlled both houses and now they only control the Senate.

Virtually all government offices are shut down- the funds are still there (until the 17th) for the government to write checks, but the workers aren't getting paid, and except for 'essential' workers who can be told to report to work without pay, no one is at their jobs. Thus, the shutdown is more far-reaching than you might believe.

As to whether the current situation reflects a change in the party in power- at most the government has changed slightly, with one part coming into Republican control. It is totally out of proportion for the Republicans to take this as a sign that they should indefinitely delay the function of government until they get exactly the budget and health care policy they desire: having one of the three major nodes of power does not mean you get 100% of the decision-making power to decide what happens.

How absurd would it have been if a Democratic legislature in 2001 had held the government hostage in an attempt to repeal the 1996 welfare reforms? At what point does the opposition have to say "okay, we lost this round, at least for now" and let the law be enforced?

Because if the answer is "never," then there is no possibility of ever having effective government.

However, if the answer is "eventually," then the congressional Republicans' position is most unreasonable. They are essentially using this as a gambit to force repeal or rollback of a law they have tried to repeal forty times by normal means, without success. A law they succeeded in holding up in the Senate for months while changes were made to make it more appealing to the American center-right.

You cannot simplify this to "they want a law not in place, the other side wants it in place, these are symmetrical positions."

To repeal the law they would need the agreement of both houses whereas to refuse discretionary appropriations they only need one house. The fact that a bill has not been repeal does not mean that all discretionary spending desired by an agency it creates must be provided - otherwise there would be no such thing as discretionary spending.

You do not understand how the crisis emerged. The Republicans stated quite clearly why they were doing this: they are trying to get the implementation of the ACA derailed now, at the last possible moment, when some people have already signed up for insurance through it.

To stop the law at this point amounts to, effectively, repealing it- or at least deciding not to allow it to come into force. This is not the appropriate way to respond to a time when control of the government is divided between two parties, especially not when the party which passed the ACA still holds two of the three major chunks of the government. There may come a time in the future when there is a clear popular mandate for scrapping the ACA- but it simply has not come yet, and it is perfectly clear that there is definitely no popular mandate for having the shutdown as a way to make sure the ACA doesn't happen on schedule.

[Titan Uranus]

TimothyC according to the World Bank, hardly a bastion of liberalism I'm sure you will agree, our nation (the USA) receives ~10% of her GDP in taxes, this is far below your 20% limit.
Also, of course there are many modern nations with various economic systems who are able to gain close to 30% of GDP in taxes.

In light of this could you either provide a response or show that the World Bank data is somehow flawed?
(I am answering your assertion that the US is near the effective cap on taxation, in case that was unclear.)

[aerius]

The World Bank numbers exclude Social Security taxes and a few other things. Actual total revenue for the most recent fiscal year was $2.7 trillion against a GDP of $15 trillion or so, or about 18% of GDP.

[Titan Uranus]

The World Bank numbers exclude Social Security taxes and a few other things. Actual total revenue for the most recent fiscal year was $2.7 trillion against a GDP of $15 trillion or so, or about 18% of GDP.

Ah, fair enough.
Though I doubt that there is much social security tax fraud given that the usual culprits are mostly exempt anyway.

That still leaves ~10 percentage points for tax increases compared to the UK for instance.
And that's assuming the UK number is the full amount. (Though the UK is closer to the upper bound than it is the average for 1st world nations.

[Simon_Jester]

One point even I have to concede (and I'm pretty sure we could raise tax revenues above the current line if we chose; it is non-obvious to me that raising federal taxes to 20% GDP causes the subsequent decline towards 15%)...

Bear in mind that the average American citizen also pays considerable state and local taxes. The total tax burden in America, counting (state-levied) sales taxes, state and local income taxes, property taxes, and federal taxes, is quite a bit higher than the federal tax revenue level would indicate.

[TimothyC]

TimothyC according to the World Bank, hardly a bastion of liberalism I'm sure you will agree, our nation (the USA) receives ~10% of her GDP in taxes, this is far below your 20% limit.
Also, of course there are many modern nations with various economic systems who are able to gain close to 30% of GDP in taxes.

In light of this could you either provide a response or show that the World Bank data is somehow flawed?
(I am answering your assertion that the US is near the effective cap on taxation, in case that was unclear.)

The World Bank numbers exclude Social Security taxes and a few other things. Actual total revenue for the most recent fiscal year was $2.7 trillion against a GDP of $15 trillion or so, or about 18% of GDP.

As Aerius notes, the total taxation by the federal government is much higher than the world bank numbers would imply. I'd also like to point out that it is my perception (and I would be happy to be corrected) that in the US, more government programs are funded by state and local agencies than you get in the rest of the world (that is to say that other first world nations have larger transfer payments from national level governments to sub-national level governments).

As for the 20% cap, using the figures from The Tax Policy Center, the US federal government has only taken in more than 20% of the GDP in taxes in three of the last 70 years - 1944, 1945, and 2000.

I honestly would like to see TimothyC's response to the evidence others cite that the Republicans have persistently refused to act in ways compatible with long term, stable negotiations. Because I think that serious negotiations are the one place where he and everyone else here would prefer to see the same thing.

The perception (and we won't know how accurate it is until after the event is over) on the republican side is that right now, they are not losing to the degree the media is portraying it as.

I would like to see more willingness to negotiate from the GOP, just like I would from the Dems (who have seemed to show very little interest in negotiating on things of substance when there isn't a crisis on). I don't doubt that if we (as in you and I) sat down, we could get a lot of this hashed out amicably in a few hours.

I know I've talked to you about my preference for the party leadership coming out of the 30 governor's mansions that are currently held by the GOP.

[Broomstick]

Although there are exceptions, it's my perception that most of the GOP governor's are more moderate than the GOP in the House. Certainly, the past two Republican governors in my state have been significantly more moderate than the Tea Party crowd.

[Zaune]

There were probably Republicans serving on the House Un-American Activities Committee who were significantly more moderate than that lot.

[Simon_Jester]

There were probably Republicans serving on the House Un-American Activities Committee who were significantly more moderate than that lot.

Oh absolutely. The HUAC hated communists, but quite a few of them favored things like infrastructure, education, and not defaulting on the national debt.

The Republican Party has changed unrecognizably since the 1950s; about the only thing that hasn't changed is that they hate communists.

On a side note, we have until Thursday for the debt ceiling increase... I'm starting to worry.

As for the 20% cap, using the figures from The Tax Policy Center, the US federal government has only taken in more than 20% of the GDP in taxes in three of the last 70 years - 1944, 1945, and 2000.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that taking 20% or over causes us to tip over onto the 'diminishing returns' side of the Laffer curve, and at this point anyone who's really serious about the US's fiscal solvency would be pushing us about as far up the curve as we can get without hitting diminishing returns.

I honestly would like to see TimothyC's response to the evidence others cite that the Republicans have persistently refused to act in ways compatible with long term, stable negotiations. Because I think that serious negotiations are the one place where he and everyone else here would prefer to see the same thing.

The perception (and we won't know how accurate it is until after the event is over) on the republican side is that right now, they are not losing to the degree the media is portraying it as.

The Republicans also thought they were going to win the 2012 elections, and Nate Silver's statistical analysis be damned. At this point, I have little confidence in their institutional attachment to reality.

I would like to see more willingness to negotiate from the GOP, just like I would from the Dems (who have seemed to show very little interest in negotiating on things of substance when there isn't a crisis on). I don't doubt that if we (as in you and I) sat down, we could get a lot of this hashed out amicably in a few hours.

Yes- the fundamental problem I have is that I do agree with the others here who feel that the GOP had plenty of chances to negotiate with willing Democrats, both before and after the 2010 elections, and squandered them so thoroughly that it's hardly worth even talking to Boehner now except to avert an imminent disaster.

After the disastrous failure of the sequester (which was supposed to be a goad powerful enough to motivate actual bipartisan action, and failed), I really think the sensible thing to do would be to send this entire Congress home and start over, repeating until we get enough people willing to talk, think, and organize that they can actually do their jobs effectively. I don't know how many people would have to be replaced from each party to make this happen, and I don't much care.

Unfortunately, we have no constitutional mechanism for doing that.

I know I've talked to you about my preference for the party leadership coming out of the 30 governor's mansions that are currently held by the GOP.

Since no Republican congressman of note is remotely fit to govern a country, or a small town for that matter in my opinion, they could hardly do worse by appointing a governor. Some of the governors would be actual good choices because they know how to, well, govern. Others (say, Scott Walker) would not be such good choices, because their background experience is in blitzing the democratic process- the sort of mindset that, given to the Democrats, would have engaged the nuclear option within a couple of weeks of the healthcare debate starting in '09.

[Zaune]

If you haven't already seen it, here's New York Magazine's take on possible consequences. I don't usually read it myself, I saw the link on another forum; are they the kind of publication that uses words like "apocalyptic" often?

[Crossroads Inc.]

You know, for those that support the Republican party, I think the single biggest aspect to their whole mindset is editing or deleting whole parts of history that do not favor their point of view.

Something else. As Simon mentioned, one of the BIG things about the change of Republicans in the last 50 years has gone from Social extremes, to more ideological extremes. 50 years ago the GOP was in many ways LESS extreme, because they would have never even doing something like shutting down the government or threatening the debt ceiling. It would have been too bad fir business. these days you have people who either don;t realize just how much it WIL Hurt business, or just don't care...