Official Government Shutdown 2023 Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand the perspectives of the many posters arguing about hard vs soft shutdowns, but maybe we could look at this more broadly.

Stipulate that shutdowns are bad (hit to GDP, government inefficiency, rarely provide political gains to the parties involved, etc.). So ultimately we should all want not to have shutdowns be a feature of our government. It’s a weird pathology that we tolerate because we can’t find a path out of this wilderness.

The end state for not having shutdowns would look approximately like one of two things (can anybody think of more?):
1. Shutdowns are made impossible by carefully crafted legislation. Rational actors in Congress would be required.
2. Shutdowns are made untenable because the consequences are dire enough that politicians who are blamed for shutdowns get voted out of office routinely.

Case 1 would be great but we can probably all see that it’s a fantasy at the moment. For Case 2 there are two groups of PPs who are debating about whether the dysfunction of the status quo is better or worse than Case 2. The best argument in favor of Case 2 is to take the big hit of a devastatingly complete shutdown so that we don’t have an endless stream of minor shutdowns. The question that we should be asking is whether it is possible to have just enough devastation to get to Case 2 without actually having lots of people die or some other irreversible consequences. If we can’t prove that it is, then we’re stuck in Shutdown Ground Hog Day.

And maybe that’s ok. After all, there are legislative approaches that would eventually significantly reduce mass murders, but as a society we’re accepting the level of killings we have.

I work in SS Disability and Medicare. What makes you think people don’t die in “minor shutdowns”? (And I take issue with a 35 day shutdown being minor). That delays in being awarded Medicare and Medicaid and SSI and SSDI and Retiremgent and all the other benefits government being processed when we droop everything and walk away doesn’t result in people dying. Because I see these cases everyday. And what stresses me about a shutdown is that I know a certain percent of my claimants won’t be alive when I get back. F terminal illness. Of lose their homes and being mentally ill and on the streets. Of suicide. Many of the suicides by vets with 100% SC durability. You need to check your privilege.

I work at HUD. During the last 35 day shutdown we stopped funding for shelters, domestic violence shelters around the country closed their doors and sent people out into the streets. We received calls from mothers with small children who had to either go back to an abuser or sleep on the streets with their children in January. There are real consequences to real people from our shutdowns now, unfortunately they are people that our country doesn’t value. Sadly I think shutting down TSA to inconvenience the business traveler might end the shutdown fast and save the abused children and I’m all for it.

I also work for HUD in the office that funds shelters and this is not true. As long as the grants were already in place, recipients could still draw funds.

Many grants expired in December, shutdown ended on January 25th. Talk with Jemine.

I remember this. I was working on the hill, and we had to broker a solution with HUD to keep a men’s shelter in my member’s district from running out of money.

Interesting. People are saying that people executing grant agreements might be deemed essential. I wonder if this is why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Hill has an article this morning about a potential bipartisan CR until January. That seems promising.

And that is what should happen - you know the parties actually working together!

[Anonymous]

If you want to defund only parts of the government do it the right way and pass legislation. My office works on interagency issues. If we are closed but my counterparts are open, then our equities get ignored and those agencies will proceed without properly consulting with us. Total nightmare. People really don’t get how government works. A sustained shutdown with things limping along is a disaster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Hill has an article this morning about a potential bipartisan CR until January. That seems promising.

And that is what should happen - you know the parties actually working together!

Although I think McCarthy will try everything before he works with Dems. But I think that is what he'll have to do in the end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you want to defund only parts of the government do it the right way and pass legislation. My office works on interagency issues. If we are closed but my counterparts are open, then our equities get ignored and those agencies will proceed without properly consulting with us. Total nightmare. People really don’t get how government works. A sustained shutdown with things limping along is a disaster.

And THIS is the problem!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand the perspectives of the many posters arguing about hard vs soft shutdowns, but maybe we could look at this more broadly.

Stipulate that shutdowns are bad (hit to GDP, government inefficiency, rarely provide political gains to the parties involved, etc.). So ultimately we should all want not to have shutdowns be a feature of our government. It’s a weird pathology that we tolerate because we can’t find a path out of this wilderness.

The end state for not having shutdowns would look approximately like one of two things (can anybody think of more?):
1. Shutdowns are made impossible by carefully crafted legislation. Rational actors in Congress would be required.
2. Shutdowns are made untenable because the consequences are dire enough that politicians who are blamed for shutdowns get voted out of office routinely.

Case 1 would be great but we can probably all see that it’s a fantasy at the moment. For Case 2 there are two groups of PPs who are debating about whether the dysfunction of the status quo is better or worse than Case 2. The best argument in favor of Case 2 is to take the big hit of a devastatingly complete shutdown so that we don’t have an endless stream of minor shutdowns. The question that we should be asking is whether it is possible to have just enough devastation to get to Case 2 without actually having lots of people die or some other irreversible consequences. If we can’t prove that it is, then we’re stuck in Shutdown Ground Hog Day.

And maybe that’s ok. After all, there are legislative approaches that would eventually significantly reduce mass murders, but as a society we’re accepting the level of killings we have.

I work in SS Disability and Medicare. What makes you think people don’t die in “minor shutdowns”? (And I take issue with a 35 day shutdown being minor). That delays in being awarded Medicare and Medicaid and SSI and SSDI and Retiremgent and all the other benefits government being processed when we droop everything and walk away doesn’t result in people dying. Because I see these cases everyday. And what stresses me about a shutdown is that I know a certain percent of my claimants won’t be alive when I get back. F terminal illness. Of lose their homes and being mentally ill and on the streets. Of suicide. Many of the suicides by vets with 100% SC durability. You need to check your privilege.

I work at HUD. During the last 35 day shutdown we stopped funding for shelters, domestic violence shelters around the country closed their doors and sent people out into the streets. We received calls from mothers with small children who had to either go back to an abuser or sleep on the streets with their children in January. There are real consequences to real people from our shutdowns now, unfortunately they are people that our country doesn’t value. Sadly I think shutting down TSA to inconvenience the business traveler might end the shutdown fast and save the abused children and I’m all for it.

I also work for HUD in the office that funds shelters and this is not true. As long as the grants were already in place, recipients could still draw funds.

Many grants expired in December, shutdown ended on January 25th. Talk with Jemine.

I remember this. I was working on the hill, and we had to broker a solution with HUD to keep a men’s shelter in my member’s district from running out of money.

Interesting. People are saying that people executing grant agreements might be deemed essential. I wonder if this is why.

I'm not with HUD, but I was a grant administrator in the last shutdown. Our bureau leadership issued a letter for all recipients telling them they had to stop government funded work, and then we were all furloughed.

I don't honestly understand why a grant obligated with past-year money couldn't be used, given that we dont have to approve drawdowns. Monitoring is mostly annual. I tried to ask our research coordinator and he was like "well they can't work on federal projects if the government is closed!" which just didn't seem like an answer to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you want to defund only parts of the government do it the right way and pass legislation. My office works on interagency issues. If we are closed but my counterparts are open, then our equities get ignored and those agencies will proceed without properly consulting with us. Total nightmare. People really don’t get how government works. A sustained shutdown with things limping along is a disaster.

And THIS is the problem!

Well. I try to do my part to alleviate the problem, but Congress critters are aggressive and don’t really want to understand. More interested in conducting gotcha hearings than actual oversight in many cases. Not all. But the worst offenders are completely clueless.

[Anonymous]

We were told we have enough carry over for two pay periods. Report to work even if govt shuts down was the message.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read that there might be some movement on the defense bill.

Where are you seeing this? I did just google, but didn't see it.

It was in a WSJ article. Movement here just being that McCarthy thinks he has agreement from enough FC folks to start the process with the defense bill.

See also (control + F "Defense")
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2023/sep/21/government-shutdown-spending-bill-vote-republicans-latest-joe-biden

To be clear. The defense bill he is pushing has poison pills. It would never pass the Senate— based on bipartisan concerns, not just Dem concerns. It isn’t a serious bill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We were told we have enough carry over for two pay periods. Report to work even if govt shuts down was the message.

You can't say something like that without identifying which agency. Every agency is going to have different assignments of essential work and will have different amounts of coverage. So, what you've been told only reflects your agency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read that there might be some movement on the defense bill.

Where are you seeing this? I did just google, but didn't see it.

It was in a WSJ article. Movement here just being that McCarthy thinks he has agreement from enough FC folks to start the process with the defense bill.

See also (control + F "Defense")
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2023/sep/21/government-shutdown-spending-bill-vote-republicans-latest-joe-biden

To be clear. The defense bill he is pushing has poison pills. It would never pass the Senate— based on bipartisan concerns, not just Dem concerns. It isn’t a serious bill.

PP here and is this the one with the anti-abortion, etc. stuff in it?

In any event I read the rule vote failed. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-republicans-still-dont-votes-government-shutdown-looms-rcna111338

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have plane tickets for a weekend trip (planned 8 months ago) over Columbus/Indigenous Peoples weekend. Since I never traveled during past shutdowns, what is the likelihood of ATC and TSA working? (Not that any of us have crystal ball.)

They will force TSA to work unpaid.

That is so sh*tty. So blue collar workers at the TSA will be forced to come in without pay so that the fat-cat Congressmen who caused this shutdown will still be able to jet home?

As well as, of course, every other person who has a flight scheduled during the shutdown. Or would you prefer that all air travel in the country grind to a halt during the shutdown?

Umm yes. That's the point. It's a shutdown of government services because they can't reach any agreement on funding said services.

That should be the outcome when a shutdown is triggered.

So, also the military should stop working? National defense is on hold for the time being - we just hope no one notices? How about the Secret Service? People involved in monitoring nuclear power? Anyone can now wander onto military bases and take whatever they please? I could go on . . .

It's an absurd position, and I think you know that.

It's not absurd, because Joe Average in middle America who thinks the govt has too much money doesn't see the affects of a shutdown. He still gets his SS check, he can call the IRS, his plane still flies.

Average Americas need to see what their Representatives are causing, and they won't see that until it's hard for them.

What about the military? Intelligence agencies? FBI? Homeland Security? ICE? BCP? Embassies and Consulates? How much risk do you want to put the US in? Because if any of these agencies/services are shutdown, then the "pain" may be an invasion, rise in crime that could include loss of life, endangering US citizens abroad, compromise of US national security and more. Do you have any line at all of what is essential? Does your political philosophy in this situation mean that you consider loss of human life is acceptable just to drive the point home? Are you willing to have a foreign terrorist group enter the US and attack the US with no LEO or military to stop them or capture them? Are you willing to sacrifice US citizens in foreign countries to terrorist or military action and offer them no protection? Are you willing to let illegal aliens (or undocumented migrants) enter the nation at an even higher rate than currently are entering because we've eliminated all forms of border monitoring? Are you willing to have a crime spree because the FBI is not working?

If I were a member of Congress I would never put any of those things at risk, I would work with people I hate on the other side to get appropriations bills enacted and ensure the continuity of our federal government because all of those things are important. But I’m not a member of Congress, I’m a lowly federal employee who performs one of the functions you mention above and because of political dysfunction I will have to continue to do my job with delayed pay of weeks or months due to no fault of my own. The people who caused this problem and those who elected them into their jobs will face no consequences. I think that’s wrong and I think they should get exactly what they paid for. I hope a shutdown would become a very rare very short event but we have decided to make these much longer by making them painless to everyone except the federal workforce and I think that has been a very bad decision.

In other words, we have acted to minimize the disruption caused by federal government shutdowns, and confine its worst effects to a relatively small group of people. You are opposed to that, because you are in that group of people. You'd rather everyone suffer in the (vain, in my view) hope that if everyone suffers, they won't happen anymore.

I guess that's where we differ - I don't think it will work, and your path will only increase suffering. You still won't get paid on time (though you won't have to work, I guess), other individuals will suffer, and there may be systemic consequences. Seems like an easy decision to me. Of course, I'm not in the affected group.

No, PPs path is that we don’t do this in the first place. We simply do not have government shutdowns.

But if they do happen, how do you know your version of a shutdown impacts less people? How do you know it minimizes suffering?

Because I'm not an idiot. Every other person on here is arguing that we need to make the consequences of a shutdown much more harsh - and your question is that how do you *know* that completely shutting down everything will be worse? Good grief.

Logic tells you that a real shut down will be very quick. Days at most. The GOP will make an end run around the far right just like they did on the spending ceiling.

A shut down like we have repeatedly over the years could last months.

So yes, it is possible the second option would cause shut down will cause more suffering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read that there might be some movement on the defense bill.

Where are you seeing this? I did just google, but didn't see it.

It was in a WSJ article. Movement here just being that McCarthy thinks he has agreement from enough FC folks to start the process with the defense bill.

See also (control + F "Defense")
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2023/sep/21/government-shutdown-spending-bill-vote-republicans-latest-joe-biden

That did not going over well. The FC has foiled McCarthy again.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/21/politics/house-government-shutdown-negotiations-latest/index.html

The House on Thursday has voted down a rule that would have advanced a Defense Department bill, another stumbling block for Speaker Kevin McCarthy and House Republican leadership ahead of a looming government shutdown deadline.

The final vote was 216-212.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Hill has an article this morning about a potential bipartisan CR until January. That seems promising.

Does this article from 11:38 this morning supersede the one you read?

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4216113-house-conservatives-defeat-second-attempt-to-advance-pentagon-funding-bill/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have plane tickets for a weekend trip (planned 8 months ago) over Columbus/Indigenous Peoples weekend. Since I never traveled during past shutdowns, what is the likelihood of ATC and TSA working? (Not that any of us have crystal ball.)

They will force TSA to work unpaid.

That is so sh*tty. So blue collar workers at the TSA will be forced to come in without pay so that the fat-cat Congressmen who caused this shutdown will still be able to jet home?

As well as, of course, every other person who has a flight scheduled during the shutdown. Or would you prefer that all air travel in the country grind to a halt during the shutdown?

Umm yes. That's the point. It's a shutdown of government services because they can't reach any agreement on funding said services.

That should be the outcome when a shutdown is triggered.

So, also the military should stop working? National defense is on hold for the time being - we just hope no one notices? How about the Secret Service? People involved in monitoring nuclear power? Anyone can now wander onto military bases and take whatever they please? I could go on . . .

It's an absurd position, and I think you know that.

It's not absurd, because Joe Average in middle America who thinks the govt has too much money doesn't see the affects of a shutdown. He still gets his SS check, he can call the IRS, his plane still flies.

Average Americas need to see what their Representatives are causing, and they won't see that until it's hard for them.

What about the military? Intelligence agencies? FBI? Homeland Security? ICE? BCP? Embassies and Consulates? How much risk do you want to put the US in? Because if any of these agencies/services are shutdown, then the "pain" may be an invasion, rise in crime that could include loss of life, endangering US citizens abroad, compromise of US national security and more. Do you have any line at all of what is essential? Does your political philosophy in this situation mean that you consider loss of human life is acceptable just to drive the point home? Are you willing to have a foreign terrorist group enter the US and attack the US with no LEO or military to stop them or capture them? Are you willing to sacrifice US citizens in foreign countries to terrorist or military action and offer them no protection? Are you willing to let illegal aliens (or undocumented migrants) enter the nation at an even higher rate than currently are entering because we've eliminated all forms of border monitoring? Are you willing to have a crime spree because the FBI is not working?

If I were a member of Congress I would never put any of those things at risk, I would work with people I hate on the other side to get appropriations bills enacted and ensure the continuity of our federal government because all of those things are important. But I’m not a member of Congress, I’m a lowly federal employee who performs one of the functions you mention above and because of political dysfunction I will have to continue to do my job with delayed pay of weeks or months due to no fault of my own. The people who caused this problem and those who elected them into their jobs will face no consequences. I think that’s wrong and I think they should get exactly what they paid for. I hope a shutdown would become a very rare very short event but we have decided to make these much longer by making them painless to everyone except the federal workforce and I think that has been a very bad decision.

In other words, we have acted to minimize the disruption caused by federal government shutdowns, and confine its worst effects to a relatively small group of people. You are opposed to that, because you are in that group of people. You'd rather everyone suffer in the (vain, in my view) hope that if everyone suffers, they won't happen anymore.

I guess that's where we differ - I don't think it will work, and your path will only increase suffering. You still won't get paid on time (though you won't have to work, I guess), other individuals will suffer, and there may be systemic consequences. Seems like an easy decision to me. Of course, I'm not in the affected group.

No, PPs path is that we don’t do this in the first place. We simply do not have government shutdowns.

But if they do happen, how do you know your version of a shutdown impacts less people? How do you know it minimizes suffering?

Because I'm not an idiot. Every other person on here is arguing that we need to make the consequences of a shutdown much more harsh - and your question is that how do you *know* that completely shutting down everything will be worse? Good grief.

Logic tells you that a real shut down will be very quick. Days at most. The GOP will make an end run around the far right just like they did on the spending ceiling.

A shut down like we have repeatedly over the years could last months.

So yes, it is possible the second option would cause shut down will cause more suffering.

And again, it all comes back to this - your (and others') belief that a "real shut down" either won't happen, or will be short, because the consequences will be so pronounced. I don't believe that, and simply am not willing to take that chance. For starters, because using "logic tells me" as a justification for anything when it concerns the House GOP is just short of lunacy.