2018 Government Shutdown Thread

Politics and religion
245

Gagh.

Woke up this morning at 0500 per usual. Grabbed my tablet from the nightstand and brought up the OPM.gov website. Government offices closed due to a “funding lapse”. All as expected. Rolled over and went back to sleep, fuzzily planning for my forced day off – I think I got through “COSTCO run for more coffee” before I was asleep again.

An hour later my wife is shaking me awake. “The government’s open again, you’ve gotta go to work!”

Crap.

Technically, I guess I’m not supposed to be here yet since POTUS hasn’t signed the bill.

246

I agree. I’ve had this conversation with a number of people over the last month. “Nothing really shuts down, what’s the point.”

I think it should shut down. Then they would get the point, LOUD AND CLEAR. People would pay attention, and fucking vote.

248

I’m glad they actually passed a real 2 year budget.

249

That was kinda nice.

Remember when “fiscal conservative” was a real thing?

250

This is a bad deal. This is fiscally stupid and you can’t point at republicans for giving us a mountain of debt when the democrats backed this deal just as much:

The House of Representatives voted 240-186. The GOP-controlled chamber needed help from House Democrats to clear the bill, and 73 Democratic members gave it. Sixty-seven House Republicans voted against the plan.

And then you add more $$ to defense when we already outspend the next 7 countries added together? What the fuck? This is stupid.

About $165 billion would go to the Pentagon and $131 billion to non-defense programs.

I’m calling out both Republicans and Democrats for this disastrous spending bill. Don’t just whine and say the Republicans are being contradictory when the Democrats helped get this piss-ass bill through.

251

Ok, but realistically, what was their (democrats) alternative? Shut the government down indefinitely until republicans agree to lower pentagon funding by 10 billion or something? Do you realistically think getting much more than that would be possible? How would that play in the mid-term elections?

What would you have them do?

Putting that much money toward our military is absurd, though.

252

I would have called out that it is fiscally irresponsible - and used words similar to the tweets that @triggercut references above. Why on earth are we adding so much stimulus in a time where the economy is growing and we have no huge problem?

It would have been an awesome opportunity for the democrats to outrepublican the republicans and claim fiscal conservatism. Call them out for their hypocrisy. I think it would have been great for the midterms…

“Despite the rhetoric of the republicans for the past 8 years, when it came down to producing a realistic and reasonable budget, they decided to line their own pockets and put the country into debt”

253

And then what? Still vote for it? Wouldn’t that make THEM hypocrites too?

I don’t disagree with what you’re saying. But what action did you want them to take?

254

Oh sure, it’s terrible. The only worse alternative would be…doing nothing and shutting down the government every few weeks. Any other options on the table for avoiding that? I think we’ve seen that the answer to that is a resounding Nope.

Reminds me of responses to the ACA. “It’s a terrible implementation of a health care system”, and that was in fact correct. But what we had before was even worse.

Until we get some adults in government that can make intelligent decisions, the best case scenario is that we keep having actions that are “terrible but at least not as bad as what we have now.” (And when it’s not best case, we get terrible stuff like the 2017 tax “reform”.) And I don’t see us getting to those intelligent decision-makers as long as the electoral process stays where it is.

255

Bruce Bartlett, circa 2012: (Spoiler: Republicans have never cared about the deficit.)

https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/20/the-origin-of-modern-republican-fiscal-policy/

The Origin of Modern Republican Fiscal Policy “The Two Santa Theory.”

Republicans didn’t immediately embrace the two-Santa theory, but began to after Ronald Reagan’s victory in 1980, when he ran mainly in favor of a big tax cut, with far less emphasis on deficit reduction. In office, Reagan pushed for domestic spending cuts but also sharply raised spending for favored programs such as the military.

Although the budget deficit rose to 6 percent of gross domestic product in 1983 from 2.7 percent in 1980, Reagan easily won re-election in 1984. This further convinced Republicans that the deficit was a losing issue and only tax cuts mattered for political success.

The final straw was George H.W. Bush’s support for a tax increase in 1990 to reduce the deficit, which many Republicans say sealed his defeat in 1992 by Bill Clinton.

Since then, fealty to tax cuts and lip service to deficits has become Republican dogma.

256

No, do not vote. Force the issue. Keep the govt shut down until they bring spending in check.

This would have resonated with a LOT of voters, unlike DACA, which while I agree with it, it is not an issue that affects a majority of voters.

The problem is they hung all their disagreements on immigration, when they should have staked out the high ground on fiscally responsible budgets.

257

I think you’re dead wrong here. I think they would be painted as obstructionists. Meanwhile, the federal government is shut down. That’s not going to resonate very well for all the federal employees or those who rely on various services.

The Democrats’ options are very limited right now. They don’t control a single branch of government and jeopardizing the 2018 midterms would be very short-sighted. If the Democrats want to resolve something, the best way forward is to get back control of government.

258

Note: I’m not being sarcastic or snarky in any way.

To give some context, I just turned 40. I’m thinking back and my honest answer to your rhetorical question is “No, I don’t”. My earliest memories are Ronald Reagan being president and talk about the exploding deficit. Then we had the “Tax and Spend” Democrats in the 90’s, but that happened to coincide with the Dot Com economic boom. After that, it was GWB and his tax cuts paired with two completely unfunded wars, a near economic collapse and the Obama presidency.

So I really don’t remember fiscal conservatives. My non-snarky question is: when did they exist? Who were/are they?

259

I remember the GOP in the early 90’s claiming to be fiscal conservatives, until Gingrich took control. And soon the GOP spent as freely as anyone else. I don’t think the party ever looked back from that.

And spending on the military was always okay, because that is patriotic spending.

Reagan was touted as being fiscally conservative but he spent lots of money.

260

My perception (which may be wrong) is that Republicans always seem to leave office with massive deficits. This generally improves by the time they come back into office (because Democrats are more liable to tax more), but democrats are still somehow blamed for the deficit and for taxing people.

261

This is true, but that’s because, as someone else pointed out above, the deficit is not an election-winning issue. Taxes are, though, and Dems are often the ones who talk about raising taxes. Republicans talk about cutting taxes, and both Dems and Republicans run up deficits, so effectively the R side has outmaneuvered the D side as far as elections go.

262

See I think one of the reasons Trump was elected was because a large part of the constituency wanted someone to stand up & be the adult in the room (This sounds laughably absurd, but here me out). Congress has an abysmal approval rating & one of the key points that Trump always talked about was how he knows the loopholes and can make better deals and he’s going to fix it.

Well as we all know now, it’s all full of bluster, but as a constituent who is tired of all the spending and wants someone to put their foot down - because it’s what I’ve had to do all my life. I only get paid so much, I need to save but still have time for niceties, so everythings a tradeoff. Kicking this problem down the road is the LAST thing I want.

So maybe I’m projecting, but in my circle of friends, who is a mix of Republicans & Democrats, we’re all together on being fiscally prudent. It may be because we have a common ground in Oregon where our governor and house just want to tax more & kick the PERS problem down the road, but I’d like to think this would resonate nationally.

263

I think you genuinely want to be the adult in the room. I do too. However, I also genuinely believe you have let your own understating and intelligence blind you to the fact that the average voter doesn’t understand or care about anything but what’s in their own immediate best interest. Believe me, I have done the same.

264

One of the problems we face with fiscal prudence in the US is that the average voter has a very poor understanding of what the federal government actually spends money on. Here’s what we actually spend, roughly, over the last 10 years or so:

Social Security -28% - biggest single program,
Defense in Aggregate - 23% - includes 18% for current military a spending and 5% for veterans benefits
Medicare - 18% - health care for people over 65
Interest on National Debt - 11% - (this fluctuates depending on bond interest rates)
Medicaid & ACA - 8% (health care for low incomes)
Social Programs for the Poor - 4% (this includes food stamps, low income housing subsidies, etc. but does not include health care)
Every Other Program Combined - 8%

That’s the rough ballpark of the federal budget over the last few years and also going forward.

If you look at the items that the vast majority of Americans don’t want to cut (Social Security, Defense, Veterans, and Medicare) that’s almost 70% of the budget. Then you add in around 10% for the interest on the debt, which we are constitutionally obligated to pay, that takes us to roughly 80%.

Given the last year’s experience with ACA repeal, most Americans also don’t want to cut Medicaid. So that gets us to around 88% of the budget that can’t be cut.

Of the remaining 12% only about a third (4%) goes to “welfare”. That last 8% of the budget is roughly split 3 ways between homeland security, administrative agencies and other federal programs like research, the arts, etc.

So where is there room to cut? The deficit for the next fiscal year is projected to be around 25% due to the massive impact of the Trump tax cuts. The deficit alone eats up all the “stuff we are willing to even think about cutting”.

The public meanwhile thinks we spend much more on “welfare” than we do, and much more on “boondoggles”, government waste and the like.

Here’s the reality: over half of our federal budget goes to pensions for the old and health care for the old and poor. Another quarter roughly goes to defense and another tenth to interest. That leaves us with only 15% to 20% to even think about cutting, unless you are willing to brave the political firestorm of cutting Social Security, defense, Medicare or Medicaid.

The true fiscal conservative position at this point in time is actually a pro-tax-increase position, to bring the deficit down. That’s just the way the numbers work.

265

I dunno, cutting defense spending seems pretty damn appealing.

Politically? No. But it’s something that needs to be done.

But we account for nearly 40 fucking percent of global military spending. It’s insane.