Shutdown

[Fireball]

Meanwhile Republicans are raising wads of cash and the DNC is broke. Of course the DNC doesn't really need to do much since the media will do much of their work carrying the water.

There's another budget crisis in Washington, and it's unfolding inside the Democratic party. The Democratic National Committee remains so deeply in the hole from spending in the last election that it is struggling to pay its own vendors.
It is a highly unusual state of affairs for a national party -- especially one that can deploy the President as its fundraiser-in-chief -- and it speaks to the quiet but serious organizational problems the party has yet to address since the last election, obscured in part by the much messier spectacle of GOP infighting.
The Democrats' numbers speak for themselves: Through August, 10 months after helping President Obama secure a second term, the DNC owed its various creditors a total of $18.1 million, compared to the $12.5 million cash cushion the Republican National Committee is holding.

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2013/09/ ... bt-crisis/

Fortune is overstating its case. The DNC absorbed a lot of the campaign debt in 2012, and will likely be in debt for a couple of years. That's normal operating procedure on the Democratic side. Not that the DNC isn't somewhat crazily organized. It is. In terms of the 2014 elections, it won't have any impact, as those are funded by the DSCC and the DCCC, both of which have been outraising their Republican counterparts.

[noxiousdog]

18.1 million for a national party is chicken feed. 6 Billion was spent in 2012, and 3.5 in 2010.

[Rip]

I blame them all but feel free to be mad at the Republicans and give Democrats a pass because while they control everything but the house they can't get jack squat done and screw up pretty much every crisis that doesn't give them some lucky out.

You realize that constitutionally the democrats can't do anything without the House's consent, right? So it doesn't matter how much of the rest of the government they control if the House insists on not doing anything, right?

Of course, that is why we have been living by Presidential decree. The POTUS can delay the company mandate for a year on a whim, yet they refuse to consider a delay for the rest of us.

In the end it is the obvious destination of a path they have BOTH chosen. Makes me wonder why either party chose this path over what amounts to very little to either side.

Live from DC its Congressional Crisis Night Live!

[Carpet_pissr]

[LawBeefaroni]

WWII Vets Appear To Push Past Gates, Storm Shut-Down [at] Memorial In DC

[hepcat]

I pity anyone who gets in their way. I have to admit to admiring their actions.

[Zaxxon]

Nice.

[RunningMn9]

True; good catch. In any event, OMG THE GUBMENT SHUT DOWN is still a hugely inaccurate headline.

Active duty military get paid. Most of the DoD civilians that support then do not.

It's a hugely inaccurate headline, unless you are one of the almost 1 million people that woke up today without a paycheck. Or one of the people that normally gets money from those nearly 1 million people that woke up today without a paycheck.

I cannot describe how enraging it is to have people who aren't affected by this fucking stupidity talk about what a non-event it really is. People that would probably be screaming bloody murder if they and 799,000 of their co-workers woke up tomorrow without a paycheck.

[Carpet_pissr]

Re: WWII vets storming the castle: Good for them.

OTOH, would HATE to be the poor (probably lone) security officer on duty when that went down.

That might be one of those life events where you just have to tell your boss "I am NOT doing that!", and if necessary, just walk away. I know some personality types that would call that kind of action cowardly, or disloyal (for reneging on a job you agreed to do), but others would call it the right thing to do.

[Rip]

[LordMortis]

Re: WWII vets storming the castle: Good for them.

OTOH, would HATE to be the poor (probably lone) security officer on duty when that went down.

That might be one of those life events where you just have to tell your boss "I am NOT doing that!", and if necessary, just walk away. I know some personality types that would call that kind of action cowardly, or disloyal (for reneging on a job you agreed to do), but others would call it the right thing to do.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/world-wa ... d=20432719" target="_blank

Well now, whose political suicides will this evoke?

[Zaxxon]

True; good catch. In any event, OMG THE GUBMENT SHUT DOWN is still a hugely inaccurate headline.

Active duty military get paid. Most of the DoD civilians that support then do not.

It's a hugely inaccurate headline, unless you are one of the almost 1 million people that woke up today without a paycheck. Or one of the people that normally gets money from those nearly 1 million people that woke up today without a paycheck.

I cannot describe how enraging it is to have people who aren't affected by this fucking stupidity talk about what a non-event it really is. People that would probably be screaming bloody murder if they and 799,000 of their co-workers woke up tomorrow without a paycheck.

It's a hugely inaccurate headline--if it's almost 1 million on furlough, that's < 25% of 'the government'. That said, my intent was not to call it a non-event. It's quite serious. It's just not at all a 'government shutdown' since the overwhelming majority of 'the government' is not [yet] shut down. My ire was directed at 'the media' continuing to be highly inaccurate with headlines.

And I'm sure you're correct that I and 'people' would be screaming more loudly if it was our paycheck that disappeared--that's true of 100% of 'people' +/- some tiny margin of error. Regardless, that a completely manufactured situation is impacting this many people is an outrage even to us non-directly impacted people.

[Zaxxon]

I know some personality types that would call that kind of action cowardly, or disloyal (for reneging on a job you agreed to do), but others would call it the right thing to do.

I'm not sure anyone can with a straight face suggest that barring by force WWII vets from visiting their memorial is the right thing to do, or that allowing them in is cowardly. Not anyone with a soul, at least.

[RunningMn9]

yet they refuse to consider a delay for the rest of us.

They are refusing to allow this tactic to work. Which is what they should be doing. The nightmare of this becoming a successful negotiating ploy is too ridiculous to even consider.

[Zaxxon]

yet they refuse to consider a delay for the rest of us.

They are refusing to allow this tactic to work. Which is what they should be doing. The nightmare of this becoming a successful negotiating ploy is too ridiculous to even consider.

Concur.

[Skinypupy]

I cannot describe how enraging it is to have people who aren't affected by this fucking stupidity talk about what a non-event it really is. People that would probably be screaming bloody murder if they and 799,000 of their co-workers woke up tomorrow without a paycheck.

The rationale I'm hearing from my right-leaning friends today has been that while 800,000 government workers (and those associated with them) not getting a paycheck is not optimal, it pales in comparison to the smoking crater ACA will (apparently) leave on the US economy. So, they're totally cool with it if the tactic gets ACA repealed. Or something like that...

Besides, we all know that anyone who works for or with the gubmint is a nothing more than a leech anyways.

[hepcat]

If it were simply a disagreement based on the nature of the budget, I could be more understanding (although probably very little). But that it's over something essentially unrelated that the repubs are attempting to tie TO the damn thing is what's infuriating. They either get their way or the country is punished.

I can't see how the republicans emerge unscathed from this. At least more so than anyone else.

[LawBeefaroni]

True; good catch. In any event, OMG THE GUBMENT SHUT DOWN is still a hugely inaccurate headline.

Active duty military get paid. Most of the DoD civilians that support then do not.

It's a hugely inaccurate headline, unless you are one of the almost 1 million people that woke up today without a paycheck. Or one of the people that normally gets money from those nearly 1 million people that woke up today without a paycheck.

I cannot describe how enraging it is to have people who aren't affected by this fucking stupidity talk about what a non-event it really is. People that would probably be screaming bloody murder if they and 799,000 of their co-workers woke up tomorrow without a paycheck.

It's a hugely inaccurate headline--if it's almost 1 million on furlough, that's < 25% of 'the government'. That said, my intent was not to call it a non-event. It's quite serious. It's just not at all a 'government shutdown' since the overwhelming majority of 'the government' is not [yet] shut down. My ire was directed at 'the media' continuing to be highly inaccurate with headlines.

And I'm sure you're correct that I and 'people' would be screaming more loudly if it was our paycheck that disappeared--that's true of 100% of 'people' +/- some tiny margin of error. Regardless, that a completely manufactured situation is impacting this many people is an outrage even to us non-directly impacted people.

I agree with this. Trying to make it an "OMG, WILL PLANES FALL FROM THE SKY???!!" type thing does a disservice to the enconomic impact this will have while planes continue to fly. People will say, "Hey, it's not as bad as they said it would be. So it's not really so bad at all."

[Lassr]

They are refusing to allow this tactic to work. Which is what they should be doing. The nightmare of this becoming a successful negotiating ploy is too ridiculous to even consider.

+1

[tru1cy]

yet they refuse to consider a delay for the rest of us.

They are refusing to allow this tactic to work. Which is what they should be doing. The nightmare of this becoming a successful negotiating ploy is too ridiculous to even consider.

Well said

[RunningMn9]

The rationale I'm hearing from my right-leaning friends today has been that while 800,000 government workers (and those associated with them) not getting a paycheck is not optimal, it pales in comparison to the smoking crater ACA will (apparently) leave on the US economy. So, they're totally cool with it if the tactic gets ACA repealed.

If they are totally cool with that sacrifice, how many of them offered to sacrifice their own paychecks for their cause?

[RunningMn9]

And now, because passing appropriations bills through congress is so easy, the House GOP is going to break them up and pass them tiny piece by tiny piece. Assholes.

[Carpet_pissr]

I really don't think the vast majority of Congressmen and women are worried about the relative pittance they receive in the form of salaries, being torpedoed or not.

Most have law degrees, I assume? Probably not hurting for money. At their level, I think their ego and standing is a much more valuable currency to them than losing a few days worth of their paycheck.

[El Guapo]

And now, because passing appropriations bills through congress is so easy, the House GOP is going to break them up and pass them tiny piece by tiny piece. Assholes.

I assume the idea is that they'll force democrats to vote against funding things that everyone likes. The idea being "look, democrats are so rabid that they're voting against funding veterans benefits! They're the ones that want the government shut down!" But of course they can just not bring up bills to fund the things that the GOP doesn't want. So if the democrats voted for the small funding bills, they effectively get what they want (all the things they want funded, none of the things the democrats want funded).

So for that reason I assume these bills will all die in the Senate.

[El Guapo]

I really don't think the vast majority of Congressmen and women are worried about the relative pittance they receive in the form of salaries, being torpedoed or not.

Most have law degrees, I assume? Probably not hurting for money. At their level, I think their ego and standing is a much more valuable currency to them than losing a few days worth of their paycheck.

Yeah, that's the thing about the "Congress is getting their paychecks!!!" outrage. I get it, it's not really fair. At the same time, if Congress didn't get their salaries, its the staffers, aids, and support staff that gets hurt, not (by and large) the wealthy Congresspeople.

[LawBeefaroni]

I really don't think the vast majority of Congressmen and women are worried about the relative pittance they receive in the form of salaries, being torpedoed or not.

Most have law degrees, I assume? Probably not hurting for money. At their level, I think their ego and standing is a much more valuable currency to them than losing a few days worth of their paycheck.

The best part is they don't even have to worry about it.

Shutdown or no shutdown, members of Congress aren’t worried about their own finances this week. Patricia Murphy on how the 27th Amendment protects the salaries of the House and Senate.

...

Members of Congress will have no such dilemma about the future of their own finances this week because the 27th Amendment to the Constitution specifically stipulates that the salaries of the House and Senate cannot change until a congressional election has come and gone. Members of both chambers currently make $174,000.

The 27th Amendment was originally hatched by the Founding Fathers and ratified in 1992 to prevent senators and House members from boosting their own salaries before an election. But the reality is that Congress is now the only class explicitly protected by the Constitution from financial pain in the event that they themselves fail to fund regular government operations. Even their own congressional staff members will be furloughed or go to work on Capitol Hill without the promise of getting paid once the dust settles.

The only thing they have to worry about are any colleagues who voluntarily refuse their paychecks and the peer pressrue it creates.

[Zaxxon]

Also, I don't believe Congress is allowed to alter their own pay.

[Edit--Curses, beaten by LightningBeefaroni!]

[Rip]

yet they refuse to consider a delay for the rest of us.

They are refusing to allow this tactic to work. Which is what they should be doing. The nightmare of this becoming a successful negotiating ploy is too ridiculous to even consider.

So the counter to the tactic is working as planned? OK, enjoy.

[Rip]

And now, because passing appropriations bills through congress is so easy, the House GOP is going to break them up and pass them tiny piece by tiny piece. Assholes.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

[El Guapo]

Evidently FoxNews.com has decided to start calling it a "Government Slimdown."

[Fireball]

At the same time, if Congress didn't get their salaries, its the staffers, aids, and support staff that gets hurt, not (by and large) the wealthy Congresspeople.

While the salaries of members of Congress are constitutionally guaranteed, staffers are not getting paid until after the shutdown is over, and some may lose significant portions of their income.

[Captain Caveman]

Evidently FoxNews.com has decided to start calling it a "Government Slimdown."

When your ideology declares the government both incompetent and overgrown, nothing demonstrates the former and accomplishes the latter like a shutdown. Calling it a "slimdown" simply reflects that many see this as progress.

[El Guapo]

At the same time, if Congress didn't get their salaries, its the staffers, aids, and support staff that gets hurt, not (by and large) the wealthy Congresspeople.

While the salaries of members of Congress are constitutionally guaranteed, staffers are not getting paid until after the shutdown is over, and some may lose significant portions of their income.

ah. I understand from Facebook that a husband of a friend who works on the hill is still getting paid, and so I assumed that the Congressional pay included all staffers. That sucks, then.

[Fireball]

I really don't think the vast majority of Congressmen and women are worried about the relative pittance they receive in the form of salaries, being torpedoed or not.

While virtually all Senators are very rich, many members of the House are not. And even though some have law degrees or MDs, etc, they can't have a second job while serving in Congress.

[Pyperkub]

yet they refuse to consider a delay for the rest of us.

They are refusing to allow this tactic to work. Which is what they should be doing. The nightmare of this becoming a successful negotiating ploy is too ridiculous to even consider.

The United States Government doesn't negotiate with Terrorists (Hostage-Takers).

[Captain Caveman]

Evidently FoxNews.com has decided to start calling it a "Government Slimdown."

When your ideology declares the government both incompetent and overgrown, nothing demonstrates the former and accomplishes the latter like a shutdown. Calling it a "slimdown" simply reflects that many see this as progress.

Quoting myself, as I just logged into FB and saw someone post this Mike Huckabee status update:

Think of the most high-profile ways in which Washington has spent our money recently. Yes, a shutdown would impact vital services. But it might also mean the NSA has no money to snoop on our emails and phone calls, the IRS can’t pay agents to harass us for our political views, the ATF can’t afford to send guns to Mexican drug gangs, and the Justice Department can’t sue states for enforcing voting and immigration laws they ignore. With a new Bloomberg poll showing 68 percent of Americans think the federal government is heading in the wrong direction, is it any wonder they’re not terrified at the thought of it stopping?

Progress! Keep it shut down!

[Fireball]

At the same time, if Congress didn't get their salaries, its the staffers, aids, and support staff that gets hurt, not (by and large) the wealthy Congresspeople.

While the salaries of members of Congress are constitutionally guaranteed, staffers are not getting paid until after the shutdown is over, and some may lose significant portions of their income.

ah. I understand from Facebook that a husband of a friend who works on the hill is still getting paid, and so I assumed that the Congressional pay included all staffers. That sucks, then.

House staffers are paid on the last day of every month, so all staffers in House offices were paid on Monday. They aren't due to be paid again until October 31.

On the other hand, Senate staffers are paid on the 5th and 20th of each month, so they'll be going past a payday without pay in four days, if this shutdown continues.

[Kraken]

And yet both sides think this is going to be good for them, politically.

One side is much more delusional than the other.

They're so gerrymandered into their delusions that it might actually be good for some of them. It will just be bad for the rest of us.

That's it. Their seats are safe in the general election so they only have to fend off crazier-than-thou primary challengers.

[gilraen]

Republicans have been planning to use budget crises to dismantle government and "starve the beast" since the 1980s. This train wreck is not new, it's been irresponsible Republican policy for decades. They just couldn't do it to a President from their own party.

They could and tried. Reagan had to strong-arm the Republican-controlled Senate 18 times into passing a budget and keeping the US government from going into a default.

We need to oust the whole of the government and get a new one that actually listens to the people and acts in their interests and not just in their own payday check.

You really think a government like that actually exists? What's your stance on the Easter Bunny?

I blame them all but feel free to be mad at the Republicans and give Democrats a pass because while they control everything but the house they can't get jack squat done and screw up pretty much every crisis that doesn't give them some lucky out.

As much as people like the whole "oh blame goes both ways" and "fingers pointing at both sides" crap - this ain't it. This is a small faction of one party that controls one-half of one branch of the government holding the rest of the government hostage. Unfortunately, most House Republicans won't have to pay for this in votes at all. Since half the states were gerrymandered up the wazoo after the 2010 mid-term elections, it would take a miracle for a Democrat to be elected in those districts.

[Holman]

Evidently FoxNews.com has decided to start calling it a "Government Slimdown."

When your ideology declares the government both incompetent and overgrown, nothing demonstrates the former and accomplishes the latter like a shutdown. Calling it a "slimdown" simply reflects that many see this as progress.

So they've decided to own it? Duly noted.