I feel bad for whoever slipped this in. They will probably catch all heck from their boss.
I'd hate working for a company that can't meet its payroll. This really is awful, shouldn't the authorization to hire be the authorization to pay a person?
If police were federally funded that could make some sense, but they aren't. Is that part of the Australian constitution? We have no mechanism in place, presently, to do anything of the sort (I suppose we might be able to have local recall elections, but just checked. In 1967 courts ruled federal legislators weren't held to state recall laws. Things may have changed since then and a new court may rule differently.
DC Police are federally funded. So is the military. All should be sent home, no exceptions, until everything funded again.
I've read a few places in Australia if your Parliament deadlocks, it is dissolved and that actually happened once?
All we have left is a "discharge petition" trick if 218 signatures can be assembled - it's actually something used in a movie. Which is insane. But that is the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discharge_petition
> I've read a few places in Australia if your Parliament deadlocks, it is dissolved and that actually happened once?
It's a fairly typical feature of parliamentary systems that, if the Government fails to pass a Matter of Confidence (such as, among other things, a budget), this constitutes the passage of a Motion of No Confidence, and results in the government being dissolved.
> "I've read a few places in Australia if your Parliament deadlocks, it is dissolved and that actually happened once?"
This is a trait that applies to (nearly?) all countries that follow the Westminster system, which is to say Britain and many of its former colonies, including Australia.
The basic concept is that if a vote of non-confidence is passed, then the ruling government must dissolve and elections must be called. The trick here is that all appropriations bills are automatically considered to also be confidence votes.
I'm not sure about Australia, but in Canada it goes one step further: any bill, introduced by the ruling party, that represents their core party agenda, is also automatically a confidence vote. So, for example, if a party wins an election on a platform of banning gay marriage, and the subsequent bill fails to pass, the government is dissolved.
This can have some positive effects - it tends to make party platforms more moderate and the legislation itself less extreme. This only works in multi-party systems though, since in a two-party system the majority will simply never lose a confidence vote.
It would also cripple the entire economy. Having that as a risk would almost certainly prevent a shutdown, but should a shutdown occur it would take months for some sectors to recover, and probably years or never for many others. Tourism, foreign visitors and domestic travelers. Shipping, which impacts not just FedEX, UPS and their ilk, but all the businesses needing to ship things or to receive shipments. It could be a boon for the rail and trucking industries, if only rail didn't also depend, to some extent, on federal activities. Trucking would be able to continue, but would never be able to keep up with demand. Of course, how much effect does the federal government have on the movement of oil (refined and unrefined) into and out of the country? Taking this further, we have no import/export anymore. Either that or both become entirely unregulated. No border agents so free immigration (well, illegal once the gov't starts up again, but who's stopping them) for all.
So I suppose, unless we are anarchists (which I'm not) or desire the end of the US (which I don't), then leaving a few things running makes sense.
How would a one day stop compare to a large winter storm's effect on aviation? How would it compare to the days after 9/11, or the early August 1981 air traffic controller strike?
It's difficult to gauge the effect of a one day cessation of air traffic in comparison to, a week (or two?) of the services that are being shut down now, and say it is necessarily worse.
How would it compare to the economic fallout of putting off progress in health care yet another decade or two?
Furthermore, maintaining focus on keeping perspective, even a single day delay in payments on US securities could be the economic equivalent of the apocalypse, and yet that seems to be on the table for the craziest of the crazy legislators.
There's a lot of discussion about what would make the issue more concrete, and people talk tough about how Congress shouldn't be paid. If they really wanted to inspire them to find a quick solution, maybe all general aviation across the country could be shut down. The economic fallout would be much less, but people who get a direct line to congressmen would tell them to get to work.
It is part of the constitution. What they're referring to is the events of 1975 when Gough Whitlam and the Labor party government failed to pass a budget by the hostile senate, leading to the dissolving of parliament by the Governor General.
Basically the Governor General is the Queen's official representative in Australia and officially our head of state. They have the power in specific circumstances to dissolve parliament and force an election. One of those circumstances is if the government fails to legislate a budget. It's complicated how the scenario occurs, but it happened, the powers of the governor general were exercised and a new election was held.
In this case the scenario is only possible because we recognise a power higher than our own parliament, that of the Queen. The USA doesn't have that but perhaps an alternative system could be worked out (if it's even desired, I think it's a useful thing to have).
The event you describe is related: Whitlam requested that the Kerr dissolve parliament, but instead Kerr chose to dismiss Whitlam and instate the opposition as caretaker.
The problem isn't that congress is being paid, it is that so much of congress does not need to be paid because they are independently wealthy. Excluding non-revenue generating property like cars, houses, artwork, etc - nearly half are millionaires. Their circumstances find them disconnected from the reality of the majority of this country's citizens.
Am I the only one that doesn't want the shutdown to continue indefinitely? Why does everyone see this as some bad thing that needs solving?
The federal government is massively overbudget. Even if all of this stuff stayed shut-down, we'd face tax increases. Turning it all back on means those tax increases will only be that much greater.
First, the shutdown does not affect expenditures. Those have already been voted in, and the shutdown will not retroactively change those allocations. Those that voted for the shutdown do not intend to revisit those allocations because they benefit from them just as much as anyone else involved in legislation. In particular the ACA already has the force of law as non-discretionary allocation.
Second, those of us who remember the first time through this particular political dysfunction in the ninties can do the math. It cost us a couple billion back then. This time it's going to cost us an estimated 2% of our GDP this year. If you do not understand the implications of that number, I'm not sure what to even type.
And that's assuming the political theater is concluded before the treasury starts defaulting on already sold bills as part of the debt ceiling fight. If that happens we enter a new global economic regime. The US will lose its astoundingly privileged place in the global financial markets as the lender of last resort. A very likely outcome is that Russia or China will ascend rapidly to become the world's foremost economic power for the next century or more.
The only people who benefit from this action are those who think they can loot the building while it burns.
I'm sure the people of Moore, Oklahoma, USA would've appreciated the 36 minutes [1] they had (albeit a short amount of time) to gather and leave before they were destroyed by the tornado that ripped through the town earlier this year.
The US's National Weather Service has saved countless lives, the opportunity cost of not funding these guys over DoD or FDA would give the Govt something to argue about in terms of mortality and healthcare.
People who wish to remain alive and not suffer economic ruin.
We have all manner of destructive and lethal weather. You don't even have to talk about hurricanes and tornadoes, any severe wind and/or thunderstorm will happily bring down trees and power lines, and set fire to fields and forests. Flash floods, heat waves, fire weather, the national weather service warns us about them all and more. Even something as simple as a freeze warning may save a farmer's crops, or if not, provide them with proof of their loss for an insurance company.
Aviation. No commercial pilot or airline would fly without a weather forecast for their destination. The public transport system, let alone cargo, would shut down.
The financial people have taken the money through artificially cheap interest rate created by the worlds central banks which is more debt than can be paid back.
25 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 64.1 ms ] threadI'd hate working for a company that can't meet its payroll. This really is awful, shouldn't the authorization to hire be the authorization to pay a person?
There should be zero exceptions, no police, no weather, nothing, absolutely nobody allowed to keep working.
No piecemeal pick-and-choose whom to re-enable, fund all or none.
Then this would be solved a tiny bit quicker.
Plus we should do what Australia does and dissolve Congress entirely and have new elections. But I guess that part is a fantasy.
I've read a few places in Australia if your Parliament deadlocks, it is dissolved and that actually happened once?
All we have left is a "discharge petition" trick if 218 signatures can be assembled - it's actually something used in a movie. Which is insane. But that is the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discharge_petition
It's a fairly typical feature of parliamentary systems that, if the Government fails to pass a Matter of Confidence (such as, among other things, a budget), this constitutes the passage of a Motion of No Confidence, and results in the government being dissolved.
This has happened any number of times in the history of Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan, and the UK, among many others. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prime_ministers_defeate... for a list
This is a trait that applies to (nearly?) all countries that follow the Westminster system, which is to say Britain and many of its former colonies, including Australia.
The basic concept is that if a vote of non-confidence is passed, then the ruling government must dissolve and elections must be called. The trick here is that all appropriations bills are automatically considered to also be confidence votes.
I'm not sure about Australia, but in Canada it goes one step further: any bill, introduced by the ruling party, that represents their core party agenda, is also automatically a confidence vote. So, for example, if a party wins an election on a platform of banning gay marriage, and the subsequent bill fails to pass, the government is dissolved.
This can have some positive effects - it tends to make party platforms more moderate and the legislation itself less extreme. This only works in multi-party systems though, since in a two-party system the majority will simply never lose a confidence vote.
The economic fallout would be terrible for everyone, but once upon a time that would prevented a shutdown in the first place.
So I suppose, unless we are anarchists (which I'm not) or desire the end of the US (which I don't), then leaving a few things running makes sense.
How would a one day stop compare to a large winter storm's effect on aviation? How would it compare to the days after 9/11, or the early August 1981 air traffic controller strike?
It's difficult to gauge the effect of a one day cessation of air traffic in comparison to, a week (or two?) of the services that are being shut down now, and say it is necessarily worse.
How would it compare to the economic fallout of putting off progress in health care yet another decade or two?
Furthermore, maintaining focus on keeping perspective, even a single day delay in payments on US securities could be the economic equivalent of the apocalypse, and yet that seems to be on the table for the craziest of the crazy legislators.
There's a lot of discussion about what would make the issue more concrete, and people talk tough about how Congress shouldn't be paid. If they really wanted to inspire them to find a quick solution, maybe all general aviation across the country could be shut down. The economic fallout would be much less, but people who get a direct line to congressmen would tell them to get to work.
Basically the Governor General is the Queen's official representative in Australia and officially our head of state. They have the power in specific circumstances to dissolve parliament and force an election. One of those circumstances is if the government fails to legislate a budget. It's complicated how the scenario occurs, but it happened, the powers of the governor general were exercised and a new election was held.
In this case the scenario is only possible because we recognise a power higher than our own parliament, that of the Queen. The USA doesn't have that but perhaps an alternative system could be worked out (if it's even desired, I think it's a useful thing to have).
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_dissolution#History
The event you describe is related: Whitlam requested that the Kerr dissolve parliament, but instead Kerr chose to dismiss Whitlam and instate the opposition as caretaker.
In particular, congress shouldn't be paid.
The problem isn't that congress is being paid, it is that so much of congress does not need to be paid because they are independently wealthy. Excluding non-revenue generating property like cars, houses, artwork, etc - nearly half are millionaires. Their circumstances find them disconnected from the reality of the majority of this country's citizens.
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/11/congress-enjoys-rob...
The federal government is massively overbudget. Even if all of this stuff stayed shut-down, we'd face tax increases. Turning it all back on means those tax increases will only be that much greater.
First, the shutdown does not affect expenditures. Those have already been voted in, and the shutdown will not retroactively change those allocations. Those that voted for the shutdown do not intend to revisit those allocations because they benefit from them just as much as anyone else involved in legislation. In particular the ACA already has the force of law as non-discretionary allocation.
Second, those of us who remember the first time through this particular political dysfunction in the ninties can do the math. It cost us a couple billion back then. This time it's going to cost us an estimated 2% of our GDP this year. If you do not understand the implications of that number, I'm not sure what to even type.
And that's assuming the political theater is concluded before the treasury starts defaulting on already sold bills as part of the debt ceiling fight. If that happens we enter a new global economic regime. The US will lose its astoundingly privileged place in the global financial markets as the lender of last resort. A very likely outcome is that Russia or China will ascend rapidly to become the world's foremost economic power for the next century or more.
The only people who benefit from this action are those who think they can loot the building while it burns.
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Did-Schwarzenegger-drop-4...
The US's National Weather Service has saved countless lives, the opportunity cost of not funding these guys over DoD or FDA would give the Govt something to argue about in terms of mortality and healthcare.
[1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-21/tornado-alert-gave-...
We have all manner of destructive and lethal weather. You don't even have to talk about hurricanes and tornadoes, any severe wind and/or thunderstorm will happily bring down trees and power lines, and set fire to fields and forests. Flash floods, heat waves, fire weather, the national weather service warns us about them all and more. Even something as simple as a freeze warning may save a farmer's crops, or if not, provide them with proof of their loss for an insurance company.
The creature from Jekyll Island http://www.bigeye.com/griffin.htm
"calling for an end to the private creation of money by banks" http://www.compassonline.org.uk/the-green-party-takes-on-the...