Presented Without Comment
Read this excerpt from a piece in today's Washington Post and see how quickly your conservative id reaches the conclusion that it takes the authors six paragraphs to unspool:
But if the politics of a shutdown are in many ways more treacherous than they were in 1995, the actual effects of one would probably be less disruptive. Indeed, so many things have now been declared essential services that the government might "shut down" without most Americans noticing much difference.
As happened in 1995, air traffic controllers would still watch the skies. And a wider swath of military, diplomatic and national security personnel would stay on the job to deal with concerns in a post-9/11 world. These would include screeners for the Transportation Security Administration, created since the last shutdown to patrol airport security checkpoints, and more civilians at the departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs.
Also likely to stay open are new Treasury offices dealing with economic recovery and financial oversight.
The automation of most government benefits means beneficiaries would still probably receive payments, though thousands of Social Security or VA employees would be needed to process them.
Even at reduced levels of operation, tens of thousands of contractors employed by military and civilian agencies - especially those providing building security and technical support for the government's Web sites, e-mail systems and databases - would probably keep working to ensure continuity of operations.
Therein lies the paradox under all the talk of a shutdown. Privately, some Democrats say they fear that a closure that barely affects the daily lives of most Americans could bolster conservatives' argument that much of what the government does is unnecessary.
- Comment (7)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments :
Aug '10
Re: Presented Without Comment
I'm partly thinking that. I'm also partly thinking that the government may be characterized by the same Garrett Jones model that's so popular lately with the neo-Austrians for describing the private sector. In a nutshell, many workers build organizational capacity and are effectively a fixed cost not a marginal cost. In the short-run organizations can do without their capacity-building workers but in the long-run they need them to maintain capacity.
For instance, if DOD laid off all the instructors at the service academies and war colleges, as well as all the ordinance technicians at the proving grounds, etc, it would have no effect whatsoever on our troops in the field in the short-run but in the long-run our military would stagnate.
Jul '10
Re: Presented Without Comment
Would it be appropriate to follow the 111st, the 1st Congress to fail to produce a budget at all, with the 1st Congress to shut down the federal government and not bother to bring it back, instead focusing on the remaining necessary cuts from what is left?
Edited on Mar 2, 2011 at 4:20pmOct '10
Re: Presented Without Comment
In 1994, Bill Clinton was given the support of the media and government employees to so amplify the pain and suffering of the shutdown, that Americans would come to believe that an unconscionable act of malice was being perpetrated by the Republicans. The "crisis" was an entirely manufactured one, and worked superbly. The same players will, of course, try a repeat performance. It will be a real test of both the cajones of the Republicans, and the effectiveness of the alternative media.
Feb '11
Re: Presented Without Comment
Dead accurate analysis, I would say.
May '10
Re: Presented Without Comment
Raycon, The fact of the matter is that in 1995 the situation was nowhere near as serious as it is now & was not seen to be a huge problem. Today it is as serious as a heart attack & is widely recognized as such.
A "shut down" would have the benefit of balancing the budget and focussing the minds of Congress towards the remedial task at hand. In addition it is true that most people would not feel a major difference, which would aid the cause.
I don't think it will happen, but it will hardly be the end of the world if it does.
Re: Presented Without Comment
I suspect you're right on the principles, anon, but I don't think the parallel holds up with government. For one thing, any shutdown will be short-lived, and therefore won't have the capacity to wreak this sort of long-term havoc. For another, the military personnel that you refer to fill roles that I think the vast majority of us would agree are necessary functions of government and would be a mistake to axe. Not sure that we can say the same about the bureaucrats at the Department of Energy, Department of Commerce, Department of Agriculture ...
Aug '10
Re: Presented Without Comment
Troy Senik:
For one thing, any shutdown will be short-lived, and therefore won't have the capacity to wreak this sort of long-term havoc.
Agreed, which is why I think you're absolutely right about the political logic of a (partial) government shutdown. When voters see little disruption from a government shutdown they are likely to interpret this as meaning that most of what was shutdown was just waste. You can reach this political conclusion while bracketing the issue of whether the voters' inference would be prudent or an "eating your seed corn" kind of thing.