Unnecessary shutdowns

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

The federal government is shutting down a lot of things that are either don't need to be shut down (because they cost no money to operate) or actually cost more to shut down than they do to keep operating. These include both national parks and government agency websites.

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/10/84362-13-national-parks-impacted-government-shutdown/
http://reason.com/blog/2013/10/02/government-will-shut-down-websites-even

We're at the point where the government is just being petty and working on zooming well past that point.

For those who think it's justified because the Republicans won't budge on Obamacare, that just doesn't fit the facts.



As a libertarian, I'm fine with permanently cutting 800,000 federal workers and I think it's nice that they've identified the agencies we can do without, but I'd rather it happen with at least the standard 2-week warning for people. Pretty much all politicians in office right now are acting like children, but that's what happens when the electorate is also.

Comments

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

I'm going to need some citations showing how Obama is blocking anything.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

He issued executive orders to kill all babies.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

He actually didn't get to far from it. He did threaten a veto for stopgap measures to fund the NIH (cancer funding for children), and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll524.xml). Starving babies make for great propaganda after all. He didn't mind so much the bill giving back pay for furloughed workers however. Odd.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

A comment in your link below sums it up nicely:

"Obama is not trying to punish Republicans, he is trying to prevent the breakdown of our government. If he allows congress to simply fund certain parts of the government to avoid PR damage, then we have a new system of government where congress can pick and choose laws with no thought given to the governmental process.

In the short term, it seems it would make sense to let congress fund a few important segments of the government, but once they discover they can do that, they will keep doing it, and things the GOP doesn't like - food stamps, safety investigators, the EPA - will simply no longer receive funding. And if the GOP defunds everything they want to, a lot of people will die, from tainted food, polluted water, homelessness, starvation, and many other causes.

This is the moment where our entire governmental system could finally collapse. The Republicans are willing to let that happen, and Obama has to stop them, even if it results in short-term hardship."

If we allow the GOP to refund the government in a piecemeal process, then they'll never have to end the shutdown. What incentive would they have? They would specifically not reinstate the programs they want cut anyway.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

Except that is just an excuse. Republican's aren't trying to fund government piece by piece. Do you honestly think it is the Republican's plan to allow the shutdown to continue indefinitely, while they merely fund FEMA, NIH, NPS, and the VA? Not only does that not make sense, precedent suggest otherwise, as Clinton signed these stopgap measure in 95 and government functioned perfectly well the month after. No, Obama is being much more insidious than you care to admit. He doesn't support these things because he believes the more painful the shutdown, the bigger the hit that Republicans will take in the polls and hopefully, in his mind, make the Republicans bend. Simple as that.

If we allow the GOP to refund the government in a piecemeal process, then they'll never have to end the shutdown. What incentive would they have? They would specifically not reinstate the programs they want cut anyway.

Funding the government one agency, one bill at a time is a largely intractable method. Likewise, what agencies are those that they would cut anyways? Obamacare would still be fully funded. I'm not seeing how passing stopgap measures somehow makes it so Republicans can continue this shutdown indefinitely. It just isn't a realistic scenario.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

What you are saying is possible. Not funding certain parts of the government could be a political move, just like funding certain parts of it is a political move for the GOP, who could possibly know that Obama would veto it, or a sign that the Dems are 'caving'. It wouldn't be the first time they voted against their own bills. The question is: Is it worth it? The Dems don't want the GOP to get away with this kind of behavior. Are they right to 'punish' them, so to speak? Only time will tell. You believe that the GOP won't use this to cut agencies they don't like (and by GOP I mean Tea Party, who are extreme enough to dissolve things like the EPA and severely gut the FDA). I believe they can still possibly do this.

At the very least, if we allow this type of hostage-taking of unrelated legislation, when will it end? We'll be at this again in two weeks. We see from this that these people are willing to risk the full faith and credit of the United States to push their agenda. The rest of the country needs to see this as well.

They're trying to prevent this:

"A very small subset of the house of representatives, representing an even tinier slot of Americans (who for some strange reason, get to have their votes count for more than the rest of us), get to decide how the US is run."

I still find it in bad faith to shut down the government over the ACA. In terms of actual budget cuts, the GOP already got everything they wanted. The Democrats wanted way more spending, but they're accepting the GOP proposal as it stands, sans the changes to the ACA. At least in previous shutdowns, it actually was over budget items.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

The bills to fund on-time veterans benefits, re-open the national parks and memorials and let the D.C. government continue running on its own revenue failed in the House Tuesday evening, primarily because of Democratic opposition; the measures needed two-thirds support to pass. Before the House even voted on them, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., called the bills "just another wacky idea from the tea party Republicans," and indicated they had no future in the Democratically-controlled Senate.

White House spokeswoman Amy Brundage added, "These piecemeal efforts are not serious, and they are no way to run a government.

"The President and the Senate have been clear that they won't accept this kind of game-playing, and if these bills were to come to the President's desk he would veto them."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57605565/government-shutdown-continues-no-agreement-in-sight/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57605565/government-shutdown-continues-no-agreement-in-sight/)

This one has tweets (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/10/the-gop-wants-to-restore-nih-funding-should-obama-allow-it/280203/)