Is a Government Shutdown Better Than More Reckless Borrowing?
Short-term solutions and governing from crisis to crisis isn't working.

The monthslong debate over raising the debt limit is barely in the rearview mirror, and already it's time for another round of brinksmanship over the federal government's fiscal future.
This time the stakes are a possible government shutdown at the end of the current fiscal year on September 30. That will happen unless Congress and President Joe Biden agree on a budget before then—which is highly unlikely—or agree to pass a short-term continuing resolution, which is how these fights are usually resolved.
The complicating factor is that some Republican members of the House are threatening to use a possible shutdown as leverage to push a variety of their preferred policies.
Some of those demands reflect important concerns about the fiscal state of the government and the growing budget deficit. The House Freedom Caucus wants to revisit the debt limit deal made by Biden and Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy (R–Calif.) earlier this year, in the hopes of lowering spending levels for future years. Members are also demanding an end to what they call a "blank check" of military aid and funding for Ukraine.
But the group's demands also include more funding for a wall on the border with Mexico, new limits on which immigrants can be granted asylum, and a crackdown on the FBI. Some members of the group are attaching even-less-related issues to the budget negotiations: Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), for example, told constituents last week that she would not vote to fund the federal government unless the House opens impeachment proceedings against Biden, CNBC reported.
Whether or not Biden deserves to be the subject of an impeachment inquiry, making these sorts of but-wait-there's-more demands only serve to distract from the essential debate here: the one over the federal government's unsustainable fiscal trajectory.
And unsustainable it is. The national debt is now larger than the American economy, something that's never happened outside of a few brief years during World War II. The budget deficit for the first 10 months of this fiscal year added another $1.6 trillion to the debt, and the short-term nature of most government borrowing means higher interest rates are adding fuel to this fiscal fire. By the end of the decade, interest costs on the national debt will exceed the size of the military budget and will only keep growing. And then there's the Social Security crisis looming in the early 2030s.
It's unfortunate that the only group of lawmakers trying to slam the brakes on federal spending is constantly being distracted by other, less important issues. Because, when it comes to the country's fiscal status, the Freedom Caucus is pretty much right.
"[People] say, 'The Freedom Caucus is a danger,'" Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) told Axios earlier this week. "No, the danger is the status quo." As Axios also notes, Paul is not the only senator who seems sympathetic to the Freedom Caucus' maneuvers, though the majority in the upper chamber seems unwilling to consider a government shutdown. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.) has indicated that the Freedom Caucus is essentially McCarthy's problem to solve.
While we wait to see what happens next, it's worth considering how this new fight over a possible government shutdown reveals the foolishness of governing from crisis to crisis. Biden and McCarthy had an opportunity to head off some of the federal government's major fiscal problems earlier this year but instead settled for a debt ceiling deal that largely maintained the status quo—the new limits on discretionary spending do virtually nothing to solve the deficit, spending, or entitlement issues facing the country.
This year's federal budget deadline presents an even better opportunity for beginning the difficult process of solving those problems. At the very least, lawmakers should ask why federal spending has ballooned from $4.8 trillion to more than $6.2 trillion between 2018 and 2022, and how that increase in spending is driving deficits higher.
Punting on those tough questions doesn't make any of them go away. Instead, it will only create another crisis in a few months, and another opportunity for groups like the House Freedom Caucus to leverage the debate.
This is no way for a serious country to govern itself. It's fine to worry about the consequences of a government shutdown, but at some point Congress has to start worrying about the consequences of keeping the government open if doing so requires ongoing borrowing at unsustainable rates.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Lol.
"why federal spending has ballooned from $4.8 trillion to more than $6.2 trillion in just one year [Right? And are there more recent numbers?]"
I don't know what is more sad: that this editor's note was left in the publication, or that this is proof that the editors ACTUALLY review this stuff. For months I have been critical of the editing, assuming that editors don't actually review this stuff. But instead it looks like they really do edit it...they just do it terribly, I guess.
Shocking nobody shrike was claiming it was only 5.4T just this morning.
This morning it probably WAS only 5.4T - - - - - - - -
LOL!
The massive federal spending budget is no laughing matter.
I’m making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning 16,000 US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website… http://Www.Smartwork1.com
The editing lapse was Trump's fault.
That out of the way, it looks like the article was edited after it was published because the note is no longer there.
I'am making over $200 an hour working online with 2 kids at home. I never thought I'd be able to do it but my best friend earns over 18k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless .And best thing is..It's so Easy..Copy below website to check it.............
----------------------------------------------➤ http://Www.Topearn7.Com
"Is a Government Shutdown Better Than More Reckless Borrowing?"
Ooh! Ooh! I think I know this one! YES! A government shutdown would be better than more reckless borrowing!
The so called government shutdowns are basically just extra paid vacation for many thousands of federal government employees. No a bad deal, and nobody misses the Dept of Education being shut down anyway.
False, though many times it can turn out that way. We only get paid if the law ending the shutdown provides pay for work not performed.
This shutdown would hit me 3 days before my biweekly paycheck and I’d be unable to pay my mortgage if it drags out too long.
And I’m in better shape financially than a lot of people.
But, in the grand scheme of things, my inconvenience could easily be justified if we fix stuff. Plus, there’s a lot more government agencies like DoD whose civilians would all be furloughed which would be incredibly costly in and of itself.
Tough shit.
Don't expect these Russian Bots to understand the complexities of running a Government. They'd just as soon simplify it, generalize it, repeat popular misconceptions about it, kick the dirt and complain.
Explain to us then why the size of the government has more than doubled in 20 years? Was it that for the first two hundred years out government didn't function or that, maybe, most government jobs are worthless slot filling?
"Explain to us then why the size of the government has more than doubled in 20 years?"
I have no idea. Do you? And please be detailed, not just a rhetorical talking point.
I agree that the government is too big and too costly. But you can't solve a problem if you can't identify where the problem is. The Devil, as always, is in the details.
The size of the government has doubled because we expect the government to deal with everything, rather or not they have the constitutional authority to do so. In fact, outside of the post office, DoD and US Marshals service, most of the federal government isn't authorized under the constitution.
That's called a rhetorical talking point. It's pure opinion, without detail or supporting evidence. It certainly doesn't identify ways that the problem can be solved.
Bullshit. It says specifically how it can be addressed. You just don't accept the answers. How is cutting the government done to only what is specifically listed as their authority in the Constitution not a fucking specific policy? It's fucking specific as hell and you know it but you're a disingenuous dickhead who would rather gaslight than admit it's a specific fucking plan. How much more specific do you need? You want me to list who should be cut by name? If it isn't in the Constitution, cut it. Seems specific enough to me. And considering that's about 3/5th of the federal budget (both discretionary and non-discretionary) it would easily solve the budget problem. Keep gaslighting.
“How is cutting the government done to only what is specifically listed as their authority in the Constitution not a fucking specific policy?”
Since your definition of “their authority in the Constitution” is literally not the actual, legally valid, precedent-supported definition? It’s the exact opposite of a specific policy unless you have a time machine no one knows about.
“It’s fucking specific as hell”
Only in a parallel universe where the Constitution only includes the parts you like.
Specific policy ideas to balance the budget are like what I put out there. Any solution to a complex problem that begins with “all you have to do” isn’t a serious proposal. It’s pure rhetoric.
“You want me to list who should be cut by name?”
No, but some detail would be nice beyond a vague “do what I think the Constitution says”, which is empty of any falsifiable content. You aren’t going to balance the budget only by cutting personnel. So what hard choices would you support to get to where we need to be? Specifically.
For example, you could say “cut all programs that fund religious organizations to keep Church and State separate like Thomas Jefferson said”. While I think that’s an excellent idea, it isn’t practical because religion has wormed its way into government so completely it isn’t removable. That’s an example of a policy suggestion with specificity.
“And considering that’s about 3/5th of the federal budget (both discretionary and non-discretionary) it would easily solve the budget problem.”
All non-discretionary spending, combined, isn’t 3/5 of the budget, so the cost of employees isn’t even in the same solar system, let alone the same ballpark. The only thing when discussing a complex issue that’s less honest than saying “all you have to do” is saying “it would easily solve the problem”. You’ve done both.
“Keep gaslighting.”
You clearly have no idea what that means.
"All non-discretionary spending, combined, isn’t 3/5 of the budget,"
Techincally this is true. Non-discretionary spending is 70.7% of the total (3/5 is only 60%), if you believe the CBO's numbers for FY2022; $4.1Trillion non-discretionary vs $1.7Trillion discretionary, 4.1/5.8 = 0.7069
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/most-recent/graphics
I see you’ve never read the US Constitution, that’s all the proof you need.
Frequently you can't solve a problem even if you CAN identify where the problem is. I could cite a thousand "Reason" articles that have been very specific about which jobs could be done privately much more efficiently if paid for by the people who want those jobs done; or not done at all because no one actually wants to pay for having them done if they have to pay for them personally with no significant loss to society. Just because something is a "rhetorical talking point" doesn't mean it's not true or that you can get away with simply dismissing it because you're too lazy to read the "details" in a thousand articles. "Somebody oughta do something about that" is a very real phenomenon, backed up by lazy citizens electing and re-electing politicians who make their careers on "doing something" in response, and the government employees unions who prefer the bennies of being public employees over private employment.
Saying "Follow the Constitution. Not the Constitution as it has been interpreted, but the Constitution as I interpret it" is the definition of a rhetorical talking point. It has no detail, no analysis, no acknowledgement of the complexity of the issue. Even worse, it starts from a premise of "if the world were the way I think it should be, not the way it is".
There are plenty of places that privatization and elimination if jobs would help. You, yourself, proposed a hiring freeze as an effective way to reduce the federal workforce (which is a great, and specific, proposal). That's all I was saying.
Also, explain why the richest counties in the US are the belt counties around the capital? Could it be that government employees are overpaid?
"explain why the richest counties in the US are the belt counties around the capital?"
There are an incredible number of high-dollar, private, white-collar workers in DC. Lobbyists, lawyers, executives for companies that sell most of their products to the government (like defense contractors and aerospace companies, for example), national political organizations, advocacy groups, foreign diplomatic corps, etc.
The average government worker isn't pulling in the kind of money to live in the high-dollar suburbs, just like everywhere else in America.
The salaries are higher than in, for example, West Virginia because the cost of living (due to supply and demand for housing, retail space, etc.) is so much higher.
I notice that people who complain about how much money someone else makes compared to what those people think is justified never takes into account that everything costs more in areas with more people. If you want to understand why limited resources cost more in high-demand areas, I'm sure your local community college has a introductory economics course you can take.
Here's an idea, cut the government and problem solved. Limit the government to functions only specifically authorized in the Constitution and you'd eliminate about 3/5th of the government. Then cost of living would also go down. And you are arguing the chicken and egg. Does cost of living go up because of high population (if so, then China and India should have the highest cost of living in the world). Or do we people flock to areas with high pay, limiting resources, driving up cost of living, which in turns requires even higher pay? It's the second btw dipshit. And, also FYI, the beltway counties actually have a lower population density than most urban centers in the US, but far higher wealth. In fact, metropolitan DC has a higher population density but a far lower median income. And very few actual federal employees live in metro DC. So, that blows your explanation complete out of the water. Try again.
"Here’s an idea, cut the government and problem solved."
Another "all you have to do" solution to a complex problem? Why don't you come up with a plan to achieve world peace? With the kind of simplistic, reductionist solutions you offer, no problem should be too difficult for you to solve with a short sentence.
"Then cost of living would also go down."
Cost of living is a function of demand. Cutting out the part of the federal workforce that doesn't fit your fantasy reading of the Constitution wouldn't really change demand. Most private sector jobs would still be shelling out big bucks to their large workforces. Do you think the RNC or DNC would disappear? Lobbyists? Issue advocates? Defense contractors? Lawyers? Any of the other myriad businesses that sell to, buy from, or try to influence the government?
And it's not like the entire government workforce would disappear. How many jobs do you think would be eliminated if the (still unnamed) departments were suddenly gone? Even if those workers vanished in a puff of magic, in a city the size of DC it would be a drop in the bucket.
Just balancing the budget would be a Hurculean task. Eliminating the cause of the high cost of living in the DMV is never going to happen because as long as government exists there will be a whole lot of people making a living interacting with it.
"Does cost of living go up because of high population"
Yes. That's exactly what happens. It's why cities cost more than rural areas. Again, if you don't understand capitalism and the effects of supply and demand, there are a lot of places you can learn.
"if so, then China and India should have the highest cost of living in the world"
No, Captain Clueless. Like every other place on the planet, areas with high population densities are more expensive while areas with low population densities are less expensive. Because (stop me if you've heard this before) high demand for finite resources results in higher prices. This is called supply and demand.
Vast countries like China and India have both high density and low density areas. Guess which areas cost more?
"It’s the second btw dipshit."
No, dipshit. It's literally not. No one offers high pay when they don't have to unless they want to go out of business. High pay is the result of high demand and low supply in the labor market. That's why wages never increase when unemployment (especially local unemployment) is high.
"And, also FYI, the beltway counties actually have a lower population density than most urban centers in the US"
And? It's a limited amount of land, an area with a large number of high-dollar earners (and no, not the vast majority of government workers), and an urban population density. Is it the most dense? No. But neither is San Francisco (the most expensive place to live in America) compared to New York, but the local topography makes land more precious and the presence of high-dollar earners (also not government workers) determines the price. None of this is hard to understand.
"And very few actual federal employees live in metro DC."
Really? Why do you believe that? Do you think the janitor that sweeps the floor at the Air and Space Museum lives the high life in Silver Springs?
"So, that blows your explanation complete out of the water. Try again."
Look, if you want to understand all the various complexities of pressures on wages, land values, food, clothing, and housing there are places to find it. The answers are more complex than the more basic impacts I discussed and a whole lot more complex than you want them to be.
Pretending that there are simple answers to complex problems or that supply and demand don't impact costs or that the wealth of an area reflects mid-level earners or that government employees are the majority of employees (and specifically the high-dollar earners) in DC may make you feel better, but it isn't the real world.
These are complex problems that require actual policies and hard compromises to solve. If you deny that, you deny reality.
Yeah Nelson, navel gazing over all the nuance has done a fuck ton of good, hasn’t it?
Fuck you. Cut spending.
Obviously you haven't read anything I've written. I believe that we need to cut spending. But trite phrases like "cut spending" don't answer the important questions, like where and how much. Nor does it acknowledge that to get to a balanced budget, politics means that you have to negotiate.
As much as I would love to see everything come from spending cuts and sudden changes to entitlements (like raising the Medicare eligibility age by 5 years), that's not realistic. So the question is: do you just want something to bitch about or do you actually want to suggest a solution?
No one here has ever said that government employees don't earn their salaries. A highway construction worker earns a salary building and repairing highways. A clerk in a regulatory department office may or may not earn his salary. Whether the government should construct and repair highways and whether the highway should have been built in the first place - by a corrupt contractor or a government employee construction crew - is the question here, not whether construction crews should be paid or how much they should be paid. There is NO question that regulatory agencies should never have been created! They should be un-created now with extreme prejudice and their employees dismissed to find productive jobs in the private sector or settle in homeless encampments in San Francisco if that's all they're good for.
“No one here has ever said that government employees don’t earn their salaries.”
Soldiermedic has said exactly that in this discussion. More than once. And two sentences later you said “may or may not earn his salary” about a government worker immefiately after saying a construction worker earned his salary.
“Whether the government should construct and repair highways”
Private highways would cause a major increase in the cost of anything that has to be shipped by truck, which includes basic necessities like food. From a practical perspective, privitization of roads and highways would be hugely detrimental to commerce.
“whether the highway should have been built in the first place”
I agree completely. How many “bridge to nowhere” stories have you read? It’s disgusting.
“There is NO question that regulatory agencies should never have been created!”
If you accept the basic libertarian principle that one of the purposes of government is to prevent fraud, regulatory agencies are easily justified. I agree that there are too many regulations (see past discussions about nuclear power), but none isn’t a viable solution.
“They should be un-created now with …”
Your hyperbole is noted.
“If you accept the basic libertarian principle that one of the purposes of government is to prevent fraud …”
This is not now and has never been a basic libertarian principle. At most it’s something that some people who call themselves libertarians vaguely think should be punished by government along with theft and robbery. So, no, that doesn’t convince me that 75% of the current bureaucracy should have been created for no other purpose than to “prevent fraud.” In fact, government authority to punish crimes does almost nothing to prevent any crimes, although putting a career criminal in prison might prevent some crimes by that particular criminal while incarcerated.
Concerning the clerk, I meant what I said and stand by it. Some clerks sit there all day getting paid for doing nothing productive. The way you find out if a clerk earned his salary would be if someone other than the government is willing to pay him for what he does. In my opinion, a clerk who is paid for doing something that I don’t want done didn’t EARN the salary.
You know you're an idiot when you call anyone who disagrees with you a Russian Boy. James Madison called it in 1798, that those who want to curb liberty always use fear mongering of foreigners to accomplish their goals.
"You know you’re an idiot when you call anyone who disagrees with you a Russian Boy."
I agree. The same goes for calling people Socialists. Or Leftists. Lumping people into general categories (usually one the person finds derogatory) is not just idiocy, it's dishonest and a sign of an unserious person.
What name is ok for someone who thinks expansion of central government is the first and best answer to every problem with few if any tangible limiting principles? If they’re not a socialist now, give it ten years. They’ll get there.
The constant dialectical drift of the Overton window to the left is in the DNA of leftism. This isn’t name calling, Its understanding of how leftism works.
Better yet, all progressive ideals, socialism, communism and fascism, derive from a presupposition that elites and the state are better than individuals at making choices. It doesn't matter how you label them, because it's all elitism in the end. .aa
Even though all empirical evidence indicates the exact opposite.
I disagree with the term "presupposition" here. Although some socialists or statists allow idealism to replace facts and logic - especially the young and inexperienced citizens - the problem is not errors in THINKING but, rather, the lack of thinking. Socialism is a form of mental laziness. When they see something they don't like, they call it a "problem." If it's a problem it implies that there must be a "solution" somewhere. When the private sector "fails" to solve the problem they want the mommy state to kiss the boo-boo and make it all better; and the Daddy State to punish the monsters under the bed and prevent them from causing boo-boos. When that fails to "solve" the imaginary "problem" they never circle back around and reconsider their false premises - or blame government for failing to solve what the private sector failed to solve.
"Socialism is a form of mental laziness."
Even worse, it has a long historical record of being a terrible idea and an abject failure.
"What name is ok for someone who thinks expansion of central government is the first and best answer to every problem with few if any tangible limiting principles?"
I get called a socialist and a leftist all the time and I oppose every element in your post.
I am, and always have been, an ardent capitalist and a supporter of free market principles. I support small government. I support the rule of law. I support balanced budgets, cutting government spending, reducong the size of government, and a flat tax.
I also support personal liberty so I support abortion until viability, secular government, privacy rights, bodily autonomy (including medical decisions being between a doctor, their patient, and, if the patient is a minor, their parents), and the legalization of most drugs and prostitution. I also believe in term limits and ranked-choice voting. So according to the paleocons here, I'm a leftist and a Democrat (or a socialist or a communist).
So tell me, how am I a leftist?
I must have missed where anyone called you a leftist of a socialist. You’re the one who objected to simplistic solutions. Cutting government is not a solution to anything except government grown too large and too expensive and too obstructive. We cannot solve “world peace” because war is not a problem that has a solution, not because it’s not a worthwhile aspiration. We CAN “cut government” to solve the problem of large interfering government. Accomplishing the cutting of government would be very simple! “We” simply lack the will to do so. Reagan very simply ordered a “freeze” in hiring. Normal attrition would have cut the size of the government workforce by about ten percent per year once the word got around. Managers could have allocated the remaining employees to whatever they considered to be the most important functions of their departments and let the other functions cease. The world – and especially the United States of America – would have been a much better place by now if it had been enforced and continued. Somewhere during that process nine out of every ten agencies and departments could have been eliminated and their enabling legislation sunset or repealed and the Constitutional limits on Federal government abuse would have been quietly and gradually restored. But forgive us if we dishonest idiots lump government employees who run screaming in circles waving signs – and the partisans and career politicians who sank the “freeze” – together as Democrats, leftists or socialists!
"I must have missed where anyone called you a leftist of a socialist."
Find any thread I've posted to regarding the culture war. Especially concerning abortion.
"Cutting government is not a solution to anything except government grown too large and too expensive and too obstructive."
I agree completely. But bumper sticker slogans are meaningless. The obvious questions to "cut spending" are where and how much. Circling back to "cut spending" or a similar empty, "simple" solution just shows the person isn't serious.
"We cannot solve “world peace” because war is not a problem that has a solution, not because it’s not a worthwhile aspiration."
Sorry, Poe's law. That was sarcastic, highlighting the one-sentence "solutions" soldiermedic offered to complex problems.
"We CAN “cut government” to solve the problem of large interfering government."
I agree. But if asking where, how, and how much is met with deflections and derision, what would you conclude about that person's seriousness?
"Reagan very simply ordered a “freeze” in hiring."
That's an excellent approach, and one I wholeheartedly support. You just have to make sure that when the freeze is lifted there isn't an orgy of hiring that leaves you back where you started.
"The world – and especially the United States of America – would have been a much better place by now if it had been enforced and continued."
I agree. This is the sort of detailed idea soldiermedic avoids like the plague.
"Somewhere during that process nine out of every ten agencies and departments"
I think that's high, since there are barely more than ten executive departments, but major cuts to programs, either due to ineffectiveness or duplicative efforts, is low-hanging fruit.
"their enabling legislation sunset"
Not in this context, but I'm a huge fan of sunset provisions, especially those scheduled to sunset right after elected officials take office after an election (definitely not just before the election).
"quietly and gradually"
Like you, I am an incrementalist.
"But forgive us if we dishonest idiots lump government employees who run screaming in circles waving signs – and the partisans and career politicians who sank the “freeze” – together as Democrats, leftists or socialists!"
That I won't do. It's lazy thinking and overgeneralization, as well as dishonest.
And your post here has contained exactly the sort of detail and specificity soldiermedic's lacked. And a lot of your details, I support.
I wish today's GOP was more like Reagan's. They have abandoned fiscal conservatism and embraced cultural authoritarianism, to the country's detriment.
Don't expect the steaming pile of lefty shit ed tantamount to show signs of intelligence.
Awwww, the sad.
You can do your part by quitting.
Do you think they wouldn't replace him? Or are you just being a dick?
Here's an idea, no, don't replace him or about 3 out of five government employees, as their jobs are not authorized under the constitution. Also, if you get furloughed for being non-critical employee during a shutdown, you're job is probably not needed.
Did you think you had a point or are you just proving yourself to be a dick?
The law ending the shut down ALWAYS includes full pay for government employees that were "shut down". What is actually better is an actual shut down of MUCH of the Federal government. That is defined as never reopening.
Good. Civil service employees deserve to suffer. Most are the enemy.
Question: why do as have so many DoD civilians? In my experience (ten years in the Army, fifth generation Army and my son is 6th) only about one out of every ten DoD civilians actually do their job. I remember I was clearing post in 1997, went into finance. Ten workers sitting around doing nothing, one literally playing solitaire on her computer, they refused to process us because they didn't do post clearing on Tuesday afternoon, we would have to come back on Wednesday afternoon (which we couldn't do because of work conflict). Their supervisor refused to break the rules. Luckily, one of the workers decided to disobey her boss and processed us (basically she just had to make sure we had no outstanding debts and then sign our paperwork). There was ten of us, and she processed all of us in under ten minutes. Her boss was pissed she bent the rules. She told her boss she didn't care, that her husband was also Army and she understood that we didn't have a choice. If command told us Tuesday was the day to get it done we had to get it done on Tuesday. So, in my experience, fuck DoD civilians. Nine out of ten of them are lazy assholes, who don't want to actually assist service members and think we're a burden.
I also been through a couple government shutdowns as a service member and didn't notice any inconvenience, as the " jobs"the civilians supposedly did, were instead performed by service members whose MOS actually covered those jobs, which used to be the norm before Clinton had a brainstorm to transfer the majority of combat service support jobs to the reserves and hire civilians to do the jobs that soldiers should be doing. And low and behold, the MOS that were the most critically short during OIF/OEF was combat service support, not combat arms. For every one soldier at the point of the bayonet, you need nine supporting them.
Oh, and since every soldier and Marine is trained to be a basic rifleman first, those combat support and combat service support can also be used in combat during an emergency. Unlike some dickhead DoD civilians stateside.
"Question: why do as have so many DoD civilians?"
I've always wondered that. I'm not military (my dad was, but back in the 50s), but it seems like using soldiers to do those tasks would be more cost-efficient, more productive, and more secure.
Read about how we stopped the Germans during the Battle of the Ardennes. That's an even better argument as to why cooks, clerks, supply etc should be service members. A clerk may not be the best choice to be in an assault, but can be very useful to plug a hole in a fixed defense.
There's a major difference between "support" back home in the States on military bases; and combat support in the field. No one in his right mind would send a soldier's husband into a combat zone in a support role. Only military personnel should even be near a combat zone! The problem, of course, is a very large "standing army" during "peacetime" (whatever the heck that is) instead of the citizen-soldier model that existed at our founding. My uncle earned his Silver Star and one of his two Purple Hearts fighting from room to room recapturing the sanitorium from Kampgruppe Peiper at Stoumont during the Battle of the Ardennes - arguably the turning point of the Battle of the Bulge - and he was a farmer before World War II and again for the rest of his life after. Although we have to have some standing army in modern times to operate the nuclear deterrent and patrol the oceans credibly, we do not need to invade Kuwait, Iraq, Libya, the Balkans, Panama or Grenada to rescue medical students! We need a well-regulated militia and the best-armed, highly-efficient permanent cadre we can afford.
The one that really pissed me off was when Clinton said we're cutting MPs because we don't need a bunch of soldiers whose only job is to write speeding tickets. MPs do a lot of very important work in combat. Combat traffic control is vital. Protecting main supply routes, guarding EPW, convoy escort. In fact, in 2003-2005 the majority of our casualties in Iraq were the direct result of not enough MPs. It was so bad we were retraining artillery and armor crewman to act as MPs (I personally served as a medic in several of these trainings).
Yeah, the Air Force has spent most of the last 30 years trying to make up for those cuts by hiring contract security. There used to be Military Police and Security Forces career fields, but the cuts forced them to combine.
The hypothesis is that with benefits, soldiers cost more, but considering the benefits that federal employees get, I call bullshit on that. I will say a GS-1 and an E-1 make about the same pay (sans COLA), but I've never actually ever encountered a GS-1 (whereas almost all enlisted start out as an E-1). The lowest I've ever encountered was a GS-5 and that was pretty rare.
GS-5s are typically only the people like the seasonal park rangers taking entrance fees. They’re rarely full-time employees.
Most government jobs are at least GS-9 or above these days, just because everything is so fucking expensive they’d never get any applicants otherwise.
From what I can remember in my time in the Air Force long ago, most of the civilian workers weren't GS grades, but employees of contractors. The gate guards (who checked ID cards or paperwork for those entering the base, and sometimes noticed that the airman wanting to drive onto base reeked of alcohol) probably worked for the same firm that provided security at Walmart. (The SP's who patrolled the fences and provided police functions on base _were_ service members.) Other contractors provided the people who did the yard work, cleaned the latrines, and buffed the floors. The Air Force did not have to train these people, while most airmen had 10's to 100 thousands worth of training. Considering that, I think that even with the contractor's cut and the premium I expect a contractor would charge when the employees had to pass a background check (so probably could not be illegal aliens), the contractor employees were still cheaper than the average airman. But that's an extremely superficial analysis.
It seems inefficient to have highly trained technicians polishing the floor and mowing the lawn - but these are additional service members who both provide more depth in their specialties, and are available at a moment's notice to deploy anywhere around the world and do any unspecialized work the service needed at the moment. You don't get that with civilian workers; no matter how cheaply they worked, they displaced enlisted men from the payroll, reducing the service's capability to make war.
There's another dimension to the base cleanup details. They reminded us that we weren't just avionic technicians, but members of a vast team - and when it came to the crunch, we might be cargo loaders to get our equipment from New Mexico to Saudi Arabia, pick up a rifle and guard the base perimeter, or whatever else the team needed at the moment. Or as the Colonel commanding the 27th Tactical Fighter Wing would sometimes remind us, in the first incarnation of the 27th, the B-25's never reached the Philippines and the mechanics, ground crewmen, personnel and supply clerks all winded up fighting in the trenches of Bataan.
Question: why do as have so many DoD civilians?
Probably a lot of the answer is pretty much the same as the answer for why mohair production was still being subsidized in the 1990's after the Army couldn't get enough wool to make coats and blankets during WW2, or why the USAF was still maintaining a fairly large "strategic helium reserve".
It's almost impossible for anything done within a bureaucracy to ever be brought to an end once it gets started.
The management policy of the clerical staff only doing a particular kind of work on particular days probably resulted from a half-wit manager misinterpreting guidelines (or maybe rules?) in some manual regarding how much time per week that staff was supposed to spend doing each kind of clerical work, and literally breaking it out so that those working under him were instructed to charge their time on certain days to certian codes (and likely instructed that mischarging would be deemed a potentially firable offense. I don't know of any DoD Civilian workers that I've encountered in my career, but I have worked for mostly DoD contractors for 25 years, and about the only two things that are likely (or on some projects almost certain) to get someone subjected to serious disciplinary action are falsifying records, and attempting to take any kind of initiative or be proactive without specific instructions. General productivity is treated with a degree of neutrality, it won't usually get someone in trouble to do virtually nothing if they know how to game the "metrics", but there's almost never any level of recognition for those who put out 5x as much real work as others in the same group. The movie "Brazil" depicts a system that's remarkably similar to working under the DoD in many ways (I've even had all of my computer access revoked at my current job because someone at HR made a typo in notifying the IT department of another person's employment at the company terminating).
When have they not paid non essential federal workers back pay for time not working on furrlough? Please give citations to back up you assertions. I can't recall a time when furloughed federal government employees have not gotten back pay. Like all workers, federal workers need a rainy day fund for such this purpose. I'm a federal government worker, and my family has a rainy day fund.
The following is from the opm.gov website:
3. Will employees who are furloughed get paid? A. Yes. After the lapse in appropriations has ended, employees who were furloughed as the result of the lapse will receive retroactive pay for those furlough periods. (See 31 U.S.C. 1341(c)(2).) Retroactive pay will be provided on the earliest date possible after the lapse ends, regardless of scheduled pay dates. (See 31 U.S.C. 1341(c)(2).) If retroactive pay cannot be provided by the normal pay date for the given pay period, it will be provided as soon as possible thereafter. Retroactive pay is provided at the employee’s “standard rate of pay.” (See Question D.4. Note that retroactive pay may be zero if an employee was scheduled (before the lapse took effect) to be in a nonpay status during the period when the lapse was in effect.)
Bottom line is that Congress needs to stop spending more than it has. Force Biden to veto a balanced budget. The debt, Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid are not sustainable and need reform now. Congress has completed appropriations before the start of the fiscal year only 4 times in the past 40 years. The last time Congress completed all bills on time was over 20 years ago, in 1996.
False, though many times it can turn out that way. We only get paid if the law ending the shutdown provides pay for work not performed.
Which it always does.
Kind of a no-brainer, right?
There's a saying in medicine: if you don't know what to do, you do what you know how to do. Same with politics.
Unnecessary alarmism!! The sky is falling!!
We can send unlimited amounts of money to Ukraine, spend ever increasing amounts on the social welfare safety net, and welcome unlimited numbers of foreign invaders whom we totally support with food, shelter, and medical care. More borrowing is a possibility but not a necessity. A government shutdown would only hurt the poor and most vulnerable. Only a few steps would be required:
(1) sell all our bombers and late generation fighters to China - they have the money to do a cash deal
(2) retire five or six of our aircraft carriers and their task group escorts
(3) keep the printing presses running - if the money presses break, we're screwed
I hope that was either sarcasm or parody, otherwise, I have to wonder how you managed to graduate 6th grade with that reasoning. Government shutdowns only hurt the poor and at risk because:
A) we've made them dependent on government.
And B) the executive branch chooses to withhold those payments specifically so that they can get their way. Most of the programs for poor and elderly have trust funds, which can and should be used to cover payments during shutdowns. Instead the government prioritizes other expenses rather than shit that is actually paid for (in theory) by a trust fund. If the trust fund is broke it's because the government mismanaged that money and it was always a ponzi scheme.
"A government shutdown would be better than more reckless borrowing!"
I hate false dilemma fallacies. Obviously both are bad. The good choice would be to make some tough choices about the budget.
For Social Security? Remove the income cap and apply FICA to both earned and unearned income while raising the age of eligibility one year every two years for 10 years, resulting in a five year increase by 2034.
Allowing Medicare and Medicaid to negotiate so they don't always pay full retail will save an estimated $3.7 billion. And that's just on the 10 drugs that will be negotiated for 2026. The next two years they can add 15 more each year and every year after that they can add 20. Estimated savings in the first 5 years is almost $100 billion. That's a shit-ton, but just a drop in the bucket for Medicare and Medicaid. Having a higher co-pay for those who don't get annual checkups might help, since prevention and early detection are vastly less expensive than treatment. Having a higher co-pay for those who smoke or do other, statistically provable things that damage health (or eliminating coverage for things like lung cancer for those who smoke or heart surgery for the obese, for example) would be reasonable, I think. Obesity is tricky given its prevalence in America, so perhaps suspending the increase as long as the person is losing a certain percentage of body weight steadily (to prevent dangerous crash diets) would be a more reasonable system to achieve results.
Lowering discretionary spending would involve a lot more horse trading. Each party would have to select reasonable people for a budget reduction conference, since AOC or MTG would demand insane things. Neither could select members of leadership, either, so the likelihood of poison pills or bad faith is reduced. There would also have to be some ground rules (like no, you can't eliminate entire departments but you can eliminate programs) and any staff reduction would be balanced (so not a 90% reduction in one department and a 5% reduction in another).
Yes, I know. Politics would make such things impossible. But I don't think any of those suggestions is unreasonable.
Lol. Wow. You are just the worst. Damn.
What a detailed and effective counterargument you made there!
"The next two years they can add 15 more each year and every year after that they can add 20. Estimated savings in the first 5 years is almost $100 billion. That’s a shit-ton,"
16 more of those "shit-ton" 5 year totals (assuming they actually happen as predicted, which is exceedingly rare in the history of the government "saving money"), and it'd be almost enough to cover 10 months worth of this year's deficit.
"Lowering discretionary spending would involve a lot more horse trading. "
Fixing the deficit on the discretionary side of things is a fool's errand since the deficit in many of the last 10 years has been larger than the entirety of discretionary spending. $800Bil (or nearly so) is definitely excessive for DoD, unless we're secretly working up to mobilization for WW3 (not entirely unwise to be doing if we're determined to stay the course of the current administration's policy in Eastern Europe), but since the increase in the deficit from FY2022 to FY2023 is more than double that amount, it's hard to say the deficit is significantly due to the fraction of the whole representing the year-over-year increase.
Why does an ostensibly libertarian rag care if the feds shutdown?
Shouldn't that be praised?
This is no way for a serious country to govern itself.
It was always about style.
You're confusing libertarianism with anarchy. Libertarians want small government, not no government. You're obviously commenting at the wrong website. Try the Anarchist Library.
We haven't had small government since the passage of the 16A. It's grown ever since then. As predicted by those who opposed internal taxes, back to Jefferson and Madison.
"We haven’t had small government since the passage of the 16A. It’s grown ever since then."
The country has grown as well. Expecting government to remain the same size as when the country had 90 million people when there are now over 330 million people is irrational. And that's just one, very basic, factor in the necessary size of government.
Small government, which is the goal, will never be as small as it was in 1909 for very valid reasons. Yes, government needs to be smaller, but come on.
It's grown as a percentage of the country's population. So, no, the 'the population has grown' is not a good counterargument. It's somewhere around 25% of the working adult population now work for the government. Before the 16A it was less than 5%.
"It’s somewhere around 25% of the working adult population now work for the government. Before the 16A it was less than 5%."
Sure, if you define "the government" to include every dog catcher and part-time park ranger and think their jobs have no validity. Hell, in 1909 the National Park Service, the Departments of Transportation, Energy, and the VA didn't even exist. Probably because mass-produced automobiles had just been invented, nuclear science was still over three decades away, and the idea that veterans deserved support from the nation they served after their service ended, not just during it, was an alien concept.
Things change. It takes more people when there are more tasks. Things are different than 114 years ago and that's a good thing.
Your expectation that an expansion of duties does't justify additional personnel isn't reasonable. While I have always believed government should be smaller, it still needs enough people to be effective.
I am not an anarchist, nor do I believe that the Night Watchman is an useful system of government. I believe government should be small, but effective at what it does.
So…… 25% of people working for gov is cool with you then?
Found the useless government parasite in the thread.
It's reasonable to conclude that a 3x-4x increase in population would necessitate an increase in the size of government.
On what basis would you try to justify the huge increase in the scope of the Federal Government?
Prior to 16A there were 6 "cabinet level" department in the Executive branch, now there are 15.
Why have a cabinet-level "Department of Education" in a country where administration of public education remains run at the local level?
Why have the VA department be distinct from the DoD?
Do we need a Dept of Agriculture and EPA that are distinct from the Dept of Interior, and/or Commerce?
You want specific places to cut, get rid of top-level bureaucracies by eliminating departments which have no real mission, and by folding in the useful portions of other departments by consolidation into more essential departments.
Dept of Education, gone.
Dept of Energy, split the weapons-related portion into DoD and the rest into Commerce.
Transportation, eliminate most of it and fold the small useful fraction into Commerce.
Dept of Agriculture and EPA, fold into Interior except food inspection which belongs in commerce.
Dept of Labor, if there's any parts that are productive they can be divided between DoJ (labor law enforcement), and Commerce.
Dept of HUD, gone.
Dept of HHS, find a new home for CDC (hopefully one that could allow it to return to being an apolitical "science" agency), fold SSA into Treasury, SNAP into Interior or Commerce, and if the last 3 years have been any indication we're possibly better off without the rest.
Dept of Veterans Affairs, fold into DoD since all the "veterans" served within branches of that department anyway.
Dept of Homeland Security, shouldn't have ever been created to begin with. Return Border Patrol/ICE to DoJ and Customs to Commerce. TSA could either be moved to DoJ or just dissolved and returned to being the responsibility of the individual airports (since no two major airports enforce "national" regulations the same way anyway and many still allow 80% or more of simulated weapons through security in audits, eliminating the high pay and union "protection" for these agents would probably amount to a lateral move in terms of outcome).
DNI could be re-split into CIA under DoD and NSA under State Dept, or kept as-is if they can get lean at the top.
That slate of reforms would get rid of or severely demote 9 of the 15 "Cabinet level" appointees and hopefully eliminate hundreds or thousands of their "HQ" staffers who are almost certain to be among the highest paid and least useful employees of the entire Federal Government as well as potentially eliminating the need for operation and upkeep of at least 5-6 largish office buildings around D.C.
For some real savings in terms of Federal spending, suspend Social Security payments to any recipient with over $4million in total or $1million in non real-estate assets, or who have over $150k/year in non-SS income (all of these people likely draw the maximum possible benefit and wouldn't miss the checks if they stopped).
A change which might take a long time to pay off, but could end up saving Medicare a fortune in the long run; any food item that's banned on school campuses in a state should also be ineligible to be purchased with SNAP/EBT funds. Also, stop subsidizing corn farming (and indirectly the production of HFCS/"corn sugar", which so many states seem to want to then tax when it's consumed).
The national debt is now larger than the American economy, something that's never happened outside of a few brief years during World War II. The budget deficit for the first 10 months of this fiscal year added another $1.6 trillion to the debt, and the short-term nature of most government borrowing means higher interest rates are adding fuel to this fiscal fire.
Pluggo says everything is great!
Comb-Overo says, "Look what I added to the debt!"
2017 I added $672 billion.
2018 I added $1.271 trillion.
2019 I added $1.203 trillion.
2020 I added $5.029 trillion.
Woo-hoo!!
I think you mean what Congress added; Trump had some complicity by not vetoing it all. He did veto one big spending bill, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021, but that veto was overridden.
every day the government is shut down should be cake parties here.
We just had a three day government shit down called ‘Labor Day Weekend’.
Sadly the scumbags federal workers showed back up Tuesday.
30 years in service industries and retail have made me cranky about holidays in general. But Labor Day, the banker and gov worker holiday, always seemed extra kafkaesque to me.
Like working 6 days a week in a union shop, yet every Labor Day social media gets inundated with memes about how unions gave us all the weekend.
Yeah, I make time and a half on Sunday, but I’d give it up in a heartbeat if they could find any frickin help that wasn’t beyond worthless.
I find holiday weekends are quite disruptive to my schedule. They create all kinds of headaches that take the rest of the next shortened week to straighten out.
If I want to take a long weekend, I’ll take a long weekend. Which I’d preferable to having it thrust upon me.
"But the group's demands also include more funding for a wall on the border with Mexico, new limits on which immigrants can be granted asylum, and a crackdown on the FBI."
Wait, what is wrong here? Oh that's right it's Reason.
The problem is a shutdown doesn't even help. All civil servants get the back pay. You aren't really saving money; just losing that service for a while.
Trump wants to eliminate the civil service. I’m 100% for that. Federal employees should be easily fireable. And most should be fired.
By the end of the decade, interest costs on the national debt will exceed the size of the military budget and will only keep growing.
End of the decade? We will be at $1 trillion per year in the next year or two. That will be higher than anything except Social Security. And roughly half of individual income taxes
On the bright side – it’s rising fast. Fast enough now so that we can now observe the cost of decades worth of kicking the can down the road. We won’t be dead by the time our kids futures are strangled. We will be cashing our SS/Medicare checks while we can still strangle them. Good legacy.
Yet you and most of the lunkheads here demand that taxes be lowered and/or eliminated, without a plan to pay for any of the services that you enjoy regularly.
Jfree loves taxes. New here?
Many of those "services" could be easily privatized. The Federal Government should revert back to what's called for in the Constitution, such as a national defense (as opposed to a national offense as most Presidents use the military for) and a post office.
PS: Most of us are forced to use these "services" because there is no private alternative.
Raising taxes to fund non-essential spending? No thanks.
Cut, cut, cut, cut some more.
Total revenue has increased from $3.49T in 2015 to $4.89 T in 2022 (revenues UP by $1.4T). But spending increased from $3.69T to $6.27T over the same period (spending UP $2.58T).
Spending increasing at almost 2x the pace of revenue growth is NOT a revenue problem.
Here's a question: what *exactly* are we getting from a government spending level of $6.25T today that we were NOT getting when the government spend *only* $3.69T for in 2015? What *exactly* is that additional 2.5 TRILLION dollars getting us? Did we not have enough government in 2015?
P.S. Biden predicts spending more than $8T in 2028.
Receipts Outlays Deficit
2023 estimate 4,802,483 6,371,827 -1,569,344
2024 estimate 5,036,384 6,882,738 -1,846,354
2025 estimate 5,419,473 7,090,942 -1,671,469
2026 estimate 5,772,622 7,293,572 -1,520,950
2027 estimate 6,080,462 7,589,373 -1,508,911
2028 estimate 6,399,527 8,003,139 -1,603,612
(millions of dollars)
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historical-tables/
I don’t enjoy most of said ‘services’. Many are unnecessary, or should be provided at the state/local level. Without the added expense of passing through argue federal bureaucracy. Or do you really believe that when you send a dollar to DC that you get a dollar in services back from them.
What if they shut down the government and nobody noticed?
China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran will surely notice.
There’s more to the military than just those critical national defense positions - a shutdown threatens readiness tremendously, maybe even more so than that traitor’s holds on promotions.
We should probably expand the military and invade those places for safety and democracy. A standing army is a good thing!
A traitor is holding up promotions? The Pentagon's argument seems to be that combat leadership positions are going unfilled, due to retirements, because - for example - a major cannot be promoted to the next higher rank, and that leaves an opening and lessens military preparedness. How about bringing back the brevet system, letting the major discharge the higher-ranking position while he waits for formal promotion? During the Civil War, thousands of officers discharged "higher responsibilities" when their superior officers became casualties. Are you saying today's officers are less patriotic and less devoted to duty than those of 150 years ago?
Hell, Patton, Bradley, Eisenhower, et al permanent rank until after 1943, was Lt Colonel. They also were breveted generals. (Several Admirals also were originally breveted).
It's still not uncommon for a specialist/corporal to be promoted to acting sergeant before officially getting the rank of E-5. It also occurs from E-5 to E-6. Additionally, it's quite common for someone of lower rank to hold a slot that is meant for someone of higher rank. I served as a training NCO and biomed NCO (both E-6 slots on paper) as an E-4.
Which sucks because you get all the extra work and responsibility (and expectations) of being a sergeant while only getting E-4 pay.
The military doesn’t shut down during a government shutdown. In fact, it’s not much different than every Saturday, Sunday, and federal holiday.
Bullshit. Any or all of those promotions could be brought individually before the Senate and be passed. But Senate Democrats would rather have the bullshit "traitor" talking point than the promotions.
The Nazi-Regime is running a net-negative armed business. My only concern is if it will take the people/states down with it before it collapses (MORE 'armed-theft' or hyperinflation) or will it attempt to conquer and consume some other nations (STEAL other nations resources).
But my biggest concern is will the people have LEARNED a G.D. thing from it.
Is a Government Shutdown Better
Than More Reckless Borrowing?Yes.
But the group's demands also include more funding for a wall on the border with Mexico, new limits on which immigrants can be granted asylum, and a crackdown on the FBI. Some members of the group are attaching even-less-related issues to the budget negotiations: Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), for example, told constituents last week that she would not vote to fund the federal government unless the House opens impeachment proceedings against Biden, CNBC reported.
Time to step up or shut up: explain how a crackdown on the FBI and the impeachment of FJB is less important to liberty in this country than openbordersaboveallelse.
Just to note so I don’t reply to 12 different comments: Feds only get back pay if Congress grants it by law per the Anti-deficiency act. Usually that’s a formality but it’s not a guarantee.
So it's what, 99% sure? 99.9%?
Give me a break with your bullshit.
How about ALL the subsidies that taxpayers support ? Some are necessary but for "fossil fuel industry" ? Subsidies must be a very, very BIG number.
"This year's federal budget deadline presents an even better opportunity for beginning the difficult process of solving those problems. "
Step 1: lay off all non-essential government workers. There are thousands identified every time there’s a shutdown. Why are taxpayers still wasting money on them?
Step 2: give every government department a 5% budget cut (in addition to the payroll savings from Step 1)
Step 3: administer a spending freeze for the next 4 years (except for legally mandated hikes like SS COLAs)
Step 4: switch all new federal employees to 401k plans instead of pensions.
5%? you are too nice.
25% would be a good start. And I would also stop replacing retiring federal workers for most positions. I’ve read that could reduce the federal workforce by approximately 20% in as little as four years.
We also need to decentralize federal employment so we don’t have nearly a million Marxists in DC running the administrative state.
Pasting a (pretty old) previous comment.
According to a Greenpeace list, US Govt. "subsidies" to Big Oil includes several categories, some of which might reasonably be considered "subsidies" but are in fact not for Big Oil specifically. Rather they are tax code elements that are available for any business, primarily in the realm of accelerated depreciation of capital assets. There are also loan guarantee and construction bond programs; again, these are available for all industry, not just Big Oil. Perhaps Big Oil utilizes these tax code items more frequently than other industries, but that does not make these "Big Oil subsidies".
The fossil fuel industry doesn’t receive subsidies.
Start with dumping the 87K new armed IRS gesta, er squeee me, agents. Sell off their new guns to the civilian market, background checks, of course.m
Next, all the DHS agents warting over "global whatever" in the weather. And miscelaneous other non-security items. Then can all the "scientists" been meddling with and ruining our healthcare, including spreading and enforcing all the covidiocy. ALL those who promoted and jusified" ,ug nappies and pokes in the arm and selective lcokdowns.
Follow that purge with dumpnig every EPA agent who is busying himself locating seasonal mudpies and making the lives of those propery owners miserable.
BATF needs a good and through housecleaning too. Let them mangage NICS, take care ofpwpersork for FFL's (actually, no. End the FFL system. We did not have that until the 1990's or so,
And here's the BIG ONE. END all expenditures involved with our meddling in the itnernam ir international affairs of ANY OTHER NATION. At present I cannot think of one nation into which we have NOT stuck our nises, at mostrous expense to us. How many trillions would THAT ONE MOVE save? I can't count that high.
A few out-of-the-gate suggestions.
Ummm… what kind of question is that? Any government shutdown for any reason is an improvement. And if it stops even a little reckless new borrowing, all the better.
When been down this road before and it always ends the same. Government shuts down for a few days but nobody has the real balls to let it go too long. So, expect a CR, followed by some crap omnibus bill. The basic job of the Congress is to set budgets and what we need is a rule that says Congress can do nothing else until a budget is passed. At this point, I like to see a rule that says that if there is no budget by Oct 1, Congress must stay in session until a budget is passed. The Congress opened on January 3, 2023 and in just shy of nine months and yet the most important job is not completed.
If they fail by last day of June they are taxed 100% of thier income (including gains) for the entire year.
I’ll make you a deal. If we can execute Chuck Schumer, we’ll let you hang McConnell at the same time.
But the Senate is not the problem. Would you be willing to chip in for a spine for Kevin McCarthy?
It's both. Several times in the recent past, contrary to the Constitution, appropriation bills have originated in the Senate. The problem is DC has decided the Constitution is mere suggestions as opposed to absolute law, and the Democrats have been the worst on this. Social security? Nope nothing in the Constitution. Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, the ACA, arts funding, EPA, department of education, union and minority preference contracts? Nope, in fact the latter two are blatant violations of the 1A (freedom of association) and 14A. Gun control and the BATFE, definitely violates the 2nd and the 4th, 5th and 6th.
It is not both. The fact is that Schummer, McConnell and Jeffries all have control of their caucuses and McCarthy does not. It is Congress job to come up with a budget. Cities, counties, and states do it and I am sure Congress could also if they just did their job.
The constitutionality of Social Security was settled in 1937 and I am sure the other programs you questioned were also tested.
The senate has McConnell, Fetterman, Feinstein, etc. it is useless and absolutely is the problem.
Can we tell everyone that has to stay home that they aren't getting backpay this time?
Amd can we we euthanize some of them? Maybe half?
The Republicrats and the Demopublicans are two sides of the same coin. All the lunkheads in the "Freedom Caucus" demonstrate is the life-long politicians' trait of "spending is bad - except for the spending *I* want".
"The Republicrats and the Demopublicans are two sides of the same coin..."
You.
Are.
Full.
Of.
shit.
Especially now that Trump is the face of the party.
Dude never met a spending bill he couldn't want to sign.
Betteridge's law fails in this case.
Continued (as posting the full comment at once seemed to be forbidden)
The biggest "subsidy" is in fact not a subsidy at all. Some years ago, the Government leased oil fields and agreed on a per barrel royalty structure. When oil was $30/BB, the royalties seemed reasonable to all parties, so the contracts were signed. In some cases, the Government failed to stipulate any royalties at all! Now, though, those royalties are a pittance and the Government wishes it had structured the royalties differently. The difference between what they are making and what they *wished* they were making is often included in the calculations of "Big Oil subsidies". Congress has moved in the past to try to retroactively modify the contracts and demanded that the oil companies accept new leases.
An economic growth orientated party is what we need. A bigger economy can bring in more money and allow us to lower tax rates. Specific policies include:
1. Keep the corporate tax cuts Obama proposed and Trump implemented. Capitalism is the best economic engine to grow the economy. Corporate taxes only get in the way. 2. The feds outlaw socialist local zoning laws via a property rights ruling. New housing will stimulate the economy and also allow people to move to-high growth, job-rich regions of the country, further increasing growth. 3. Increase legal immigration. Growth requires more workers, especially skilled workers. Our federal legal immigration policy is too restrictive now to support a growing economy without the threat of inflation. 4. Get rid of most job licensing requirements. These mostly serve as barriers to entry and keep good people out of work.
These will serve as a good start and won’t cost a dime.
(This was all supposed to be farther up, not sure what the issue is).
Greenpeace includes a few clunkers, though. For example, they include Sales Tax breaks. Last time I checked, the US Govt. does not impose Sales Taxes on any products. But somehow that's a Big Oil subsidy.
Greenpeace also includes several intangibles in their "Big Oil subsidies" list. Things such as
* Giving money to international financial institutions
* The U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve
* Construction and protection of the nation's highway system
* Allowing the industry to pollute
Keep the nature of these fake “subsidies” in mind when discussing the issue. The “Green” industry partakes of several of these same subsidies: Modified Accelerated Cost-Recovery System, R and D credits, etc., but also receive direct no-doubt-about-it subsides. Like ethanol's $0.50/gallon production subsidy (not to mention ag subsidies used to prop up the growing of the corn that goes into ethanol, billions of dollars every year going into the pockets of Big Ag), or EV $7500/car subsidy, solar subsides over the years.
Well, I've figured out what made the commenting system mad.
My original comment had the words
Modified Accelerated Cost-Recovery System
followed by the acronym for those words in parentheses.
Deleting that one part made it happy again.
Yes, essential services are still funded, the rest needs some serious consideration.
"This is no way for a serious country to govern itself."
We haven't been a serious country for 2-3 decades now. We went straight from "It's not serious enough to deal with yet" to "It's too late, might as well party until the crash" without ever having a moment when we'd do anything.
No, that's not quite true: When the Republicans took over after the '94 election, they did propose a balanced budget amendment, which might have saved us. But instead of being serious about it, they deliberately sabotages their own amendment by bringing it to the floor in several versions, so that everybody who needed to be able to say they'd voted for it could, without risk of any one version getting enough votes to be sent to the states for ratification.
So, I guess I do blame Newt Gingrich, after all, for the coming crash.