
Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years - ddinh
http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnovack/2013/09/30/clock-ticks-to-first-federal-shutdown-in-17-years/
======
throwaway420
I really hate that the media has labeled this a government shut down.

Is the NSA going to stop spying on us? Are they still printing money? Are
corporate subsidies still proceeding as normal? Will they stop taxing us? Will
they stop giving out checks to the military industrial complex? Will they stop
military attacks? Will we still be felt up at airports? Are they still going
to throw people behind bars for illegal plants?

The reality is that all of the worst parts of the government are still
running.

~~~
rhelmer
Not sure who counts as "military industrial complex", but the Pentagon has
already said that troops will not be paid:
[http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gC5rwPOPz...](http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gC5rwPOPzH3nTjqtHiOZE3z6LtXg?docId=6e822e78-125b-46a9-a3a6-fd545c8b2c76)

~~~
chaz
Hours before the shutdown, Obama signed a bill that granted an exception to
the military, ensuring it will continue to operate and troops will be paid:
[http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/government-shutdown-
se...](http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/government-shutdown-senate-sends-
obama-military-pay-bill-97582.html)

~~~
icambron
Which is also in the article:

>But 1.4 million uniformed members of the military will stay on the job and
will be paid, thanks to a last-minute bill unanimously passed by both houses
and signed by Obama on Monday night.

Which goes to show that no matter how dysfunctional our government becomes it
will go to any length to ensure that it's still capable of killing lots of
people.

~~~
tedunangst
Someone else might rephrase that as "no matter how dysfunctional our
government becomes it will go to any length to ensure that those people who
are asked to die in its name still receive the token remuneration promised
them."

~~~
icambron
"...and thus can continue being asked to die in its name."

------
nostromo
We all spend so much time focusing on the Federal Government but I doubt many
of us will even notice the "shut down."

Compare that with what would happen if your local and state governments shut
down: Trash would pile up. Criminals would run free in the streets. Fires
wouldn't be put out. Water and electricity would stop. Sewage systems would
back up. Schools would close. We're talking about services that are the very
cornerstones of modern society.

It really gives you an appreciation for what the state and local governments
accomplish.

~~~
nhaehnle
The truly positive contribution of a federal government (besides the
questionable benefit of military protection) comes in the form of automatic
stabilizers for the economy.

When there is a shock to the economy, social safety nets dampen the pain
significantly. Local and state governments would never be able to provide a
reliable social safety net, because they have to operate on the same
principles as every other user of a currency. The federal government can
operate on the principles of an _issuer_ of the currency. That is a big
difference.

In fact, you can see this difference play out in slow motion in the Eurozone,
which still has not recovered from the financial crisis. Things would have
played out _very_ different had their been a Eurozone federal government that
provides at least the basic components of the social safety nets.

~~~
scottjad
This is basically argumentation by story. You told one of many possible
stories as if it was obviously and indisputably true. You provided no support
for it. What about all the other plausible stories that you ignored?

What if these "stabilizers" (i.e. money creation) are doing more harm than
good, or even causing the business cycle? What if social safety hammocks
decrease growth? What if welfare provided by prudent local governments through
savings, or even private means, are sufficient? What if there are a ton of
differences between the Europe and America other than the Federal Reserve?

~~~
wpietri
And argumentation by loaded, leading questions is better because...?

~~~
scottjad
I'm not arguing the position, I was providing a few examples where people can
reasonably disagree with the story that was presented as obvious and
definitive and educational.

------
pkfrank
>The bigger issue, he [Vanguard Group Chief Economist Joseph Davis] said, is
how much the turmoil raises the “Uncertainty Tax” on the U.S. economy. Policy
uncertainty, Davis argues, is already keeping U.S. economic growth down around
2%, when it could be 3% a year.

This is what captures my frustration as well.

It's infuriating that a faction of Tea Partiers is causing such instability.
Having campaigned on a promise of doing _anything_ to stop ObamaCare, they've
already played their (reckless) hand.

This is bringing a hatchet where you need a scalpel; "ObamaCare" will still go
into effect no matter what, and this does nothing more than score political
points at the expense of the nation's health.

This is precisely why people hate and subsequently tune out to politics - an
unfortunate and dangerous reality.

~~~
001sky
_It 's infuriating that a faction of Tea Partiers is causing such instability_

Why is growth not considered a form of instability? Just curious, last time I
looked risk and volatility were agnostic to direction.

~~~
icambron
Risk is very explicitly directional. E.g. Wikipedia has it as:

> Risk is the potential of loss (an undesirable outcome, however not
> necessarily so) resulting from a given action, activity and/or inaction

When _was_ the last time you checked?

~~~
001sky
Instability is volatility (sigma). check it out.

[http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100630193942AA...](http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100630193942AABsy3C)

~~~
icambron
I didn't even mention volatility or stability. I was challenging your
assertion that risk was agnostic to direction. It is not.

~~~
001sky
Try this refresher on Risk and Uncertainty

[http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2010/06/ris...](http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2010/06/risk-
versus-uncertainty.html)

------
jliechti1
How significant is this though? A quick wikipedia search shows the government
has shut down 18 times (including this one) since 1976.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdown#Federal_gov...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdown#Federal_government)

In fact, the government shut down almost _every_ year from 1976 to 1987 (only
missing 1980 and 1985).

~~~
cshenoy
Well considering it hasn't happened since 1995 (18 years), I'd say it's pretty
significant. Also, the GOP reasoning behind it seems pretty silly (defunding
the ACA).

------
gizmo686
Slightly off topic, but this shutdown is one of those times where I got a very
different perspective simply by reading about it from a non-US based (Al
Jazeera) source. It is not that they write anything different than local
sources, but the whole situation seems way sillier when I think about how this
must look to people outside of the country.

~~~
Andrenid
As an outsider, it is definitely seen as "entertaining", while also not really
being cared about much. Just another one of those "oh America, you're so
silly" moments really.

~~~
gizmo686
You do realize that America is a major player in the global economy. If we go
down, we are taking everyone with us.

~~~
Derbasti
Probably not as much as you seem to think. The last banking crisis originated
in the US, but it didn't hit the non-US nearly as hard. In many ways, the US
is actually very self-contained and in the backlash from its recent crisis,
many countries have kind of separated themselves a bit.

But it would be bad, yes. Though I don't hink the US would 'take down' Asia or
Europe.

~~~
Aloisius
> _The last banking crisis originated in the US, but it didn 't hit the non-US
> nearly as hard._

Didn't the last US crisis lead to multiple countries defaulting on their debt
and having to be bailed out and economic malaise that continues to this day?

------
twoodfin
I'm glad this was posted here, otherwise I never would have known.

Something all hackers should be paying attention to, certainly. Many
implications for how we write our software, the future of networked
communication and more.

~~~
jmduke
_I 'm glad this was posted here, otherwise I never would have known._

I don't mean this sarcastically -- are you serious? It's been plastered over
my news and social feeds for the past 48 hours, but I recognize I have a
disproportionately large amount of friends/acquaintances in DC.

~~~
twoodfin
My flag privileges were lost during a flight to Cuba, and the guidelines
specify that we not complain about the relevance of posts in the comments. So
I won't complain.

~~~
jmduke
I just reread your comment and now I feel like a dunce. Leaving my original
comment, so that I might better revel in my shame.

------
pachydermic
10% approval rating for congress. Wow. But _my_ congressman is great! /s

------
shirro
Isn't there anything in the US constitution to break deadlocks? In Australia
if the government can't get a bill through the senate, they can try again in 3
months and if it still doesn't go through then it can be used a trigger to
dismiss the house of reps and the senate and call a new election.

~~~
nknighthb
No. There is no monarch or governor general. There are no reserve powers.
There is no provision for early general elections. The President is not a
Prime Minister, and Congress is not a parliament. Neither is responsible to
the other. The House of Representatives and the Senate can each freely block
the other indefinitely.

The only Constitutional mechanisms available for breaking a deadlock are
Congressional elections every 2 years (entire house and 1/3rd of Senate),
Presidential elections every 4 years, and the theoretical ability of 2/3rds of
the states to force a Constitutional Convention to propose amendments (this
has never actually happened; all Constitutional amendments have been first
proposed by Congress; in either case, any amendments must be ratified by
3/4ths of states, which will never happen in the current environment where
half the states would be happier destroying the country than seeing the scary
black man in office for one more day).

~~~
shirro
We get half senate elections, not 1/3, but a similar result with the senate
being out of step with the reps. Which is why in a crisis the double
dissolution is a whole senate election to try and get things moving again. It
seems odd that the President, being head of state, would not have similar
powers to the Crown/GG to dismiss a dysfunctional parliament to resolve
deadlocks. Too much power wrapped up in the presidency then I guess.

Similar problems happen all around the world where there is a minority
government or an upper house blocking supply bills. The unusual thing with the
US is the lack of constitutional mechanisms to resolve the problem before the
government has to shut down. It seems odd that the writers of the constitution
didn't recognise the problem.

~~~
caf
It is worth remembering that the framers of the Australian Constitution were
informed by, among other things, the United States' century of experience with
their Constitution. They had a chance to fix some of the bugs.

------
fivre
All the news sites in the world to choose from and the one that hits the front
page is the one with interstitials before articles and broken, ugly design?

------
beedogs
How do the Republicans reckon they'll come out ahead after this? It'll be a
GOP bloodbath in 2014.

~~~
ubernostrum
They feel pretty confident, because they gerrymandered the hell out of the
country's electoral map in the 2010 redistricting. That's how they currently
have a majority in the House: there is a significant overall preference among
the voters for Democrats, but the electoral map has been drawn so as to
concentrate Republican voters and break up blocs of Democratic voters,
ensuring that they will have enough "safe" districts to retain control of the
House at least until the 2020 redistricting.

~~~
clarkm
If you don't want to look like a conspiracy theorist, you should probably stop
making such hyperbolic claims about gerrymandering.

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/17/r...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/17/redistricting-
didnt-win-republicans-the-house/)

~~~
ubernostrum
There's nothing "hyperbolic" about it. The party that's in power during
redistricting always does this. It so happens that this time around it was the
Republicans, and they've set up the districts so that they feel safe in
pursuing an unpopular agenda.

The _actual_ hyperbolic conspiracy-theory angle on redistricting is that the
long-term plan, funded by the Kochs and others, was to ensure that only the
most extreme Republicans are safe, and that moderate Republicans will be in
danger of primary challenges from extremists.

~~~
mayneack
Political scientists have long said that there's not a lot of evidence for a
change in macro outcomes due to gerrymandering. In most scenarios, if
anything, gerrymandering makes sitting politicians on both sides more safe.
It's really hard to actually tip the balance such that one side gets
significantly more seats because if you spread your supporters out efficiently
(51% your party) and then cluster the other party, you get a bunch of weakly
held seats. However, if you want safe seats, you get fewer of them.

------
scottjad
What has surprised me about this issue is how so much of the media has
automatically adopted the Democrats narrative (especially on point #1, see
below). Surprisingly, the media stories covering this shutdown are actually
pretty fair in their summary (at least with respect to point #1).

The Democrat narrative has at least three elements:

(1) The House Republicans are unwilling to compromise and will shutdown the
government if they can't get rid of Obamacare. (2) This will ruin the economy.
(3) America should pay its bills.

So much of the media has ignored the Republican narrative:

(1) Senate Democrats and the President are unwilling to compromise and will
shutdown the government if they can't keep all of Obamacare. (2) Excessive
government spending hurts the economy. (3) Going deeper into debt is not
paying ones bills.

Like I said, surprisingly the latest blurbs about the shutdown actually focus
on Congress as a whole not being able to compromise and come to an agreement
instead of focusing only on the GOP or Tea Party.

~~~
Steko
"So much of the media has ignored the Republican narrative:"

Maybe because it's bullshit.

"Congress as a whole not being able to compromise"

There's no compromise being offered, this is hostage taking. As Kevin Drum
said earlier today:

 _If my neighbor threatens to steal my car, and then comes back and says he
'll settle for just stealing my TV set, what kind of compromise is that? What
am I getting out of the deal?_

[http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/09/i-think-
republ...](http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/09/i-think-republicans-
are-confused-about-word-compromise)

------
robobenjie
This is really depressing. The system seems to be designed to be strong but
not infallible, with the assumptions that the people trusted to run the
government would do so competently with the best interests of the nation. It
seems clear that a slow process of radicalization has replaced the interests
of the nation with the interests of the party and it's unclear how to fix it.

If one group defects to block voting and no compromise the other side has to
also defect or be run over. This is the prisoner's dilemma writ large, only we
citizens are the ones paying the penalty for dual defection.

~~~
twoodfin
Three or four years after the last shutdown (twenty days long!) we had a
budget surplus and the lowest unemployment in decades. I'm not saying those
things are related, but your pessimism is probably excessive.

~~~
wpietri
That happened during a very strong economy. The economy now is much more
vulnerable. An extended shutdown could tip the US back into recession, partly
through primary effects (that is, reduced economic activity from everybody the
government pays, and everybody they pay) and partly through secondary ones
(e.g., consumers putting off spending and businesses deferring investment
until things are more clear).

Also, the threats to force a debt default along with the shutdown are
dumbfounding. That would, as The Economist writes, "unleash global financial
chaos". Poorly handled, it could be worse than the 2008 crisis, especially
given what poor shape Europe is in right now.

------
scottjad
So like 1% of the Federal government (by spending, just making this number up)
is going to be closed.

National parks, EPA, WIC, and Housing and Urban Dev.

99% of the federal government (by spending) will remain open, including:

US Military, Food stamps, Unemployment benefits, Social Security benefits,
TSA, air traffic control, border patrol, Federal Reserve, and the Post Office.

[http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/09/30/227884483...](http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/09/30/227884483/the-
shutdown-a-guide-to-what-would-and-wouldnt-close)

~~~
Aloisius
800,000 people are getting furloughed and another 1 million are being asked to
work without pay. That's pretty significant.

------
ars
It seems to me that if it was illegal to combine unrelated subject into a
single vote/bill government would run much smoother.

No "pork" or pet projects (you'd have to vote separately on each). You could
add ACA provisions to this government spending bill since they are unrelated,
so there would be no shutdown.

Since it's hard to define "unrelated" make it so that if 1/3 of the members
vote that it's unrelated, then it's unrelated and has to voted on separately.

------
jonah
I hope they get it started back up soon. I was hoping to visit some National
Parks later in the month. (Not being sarcastic here.)

This brinkmanship is a travesty.

------
altoz
why is this a bad thing? less spending on something pretty much everyone
agrees is bloated is bad? it's like saying morbidly obese person has slightly
less access to food. every person in the media seems to assume this is a bad
thing. i say this is a good thing. if we can't agree on how money should be
spent, it's better that it not get spent at all.

~~~
alexqgb
This is retarded. There's just no other word to describe the mental deficiency
big enough to render something as large, complex, and valueable as government
as uniformly "good" or "bad", or as something that can intelligently be
described in terms of "less" and "more" as though it were a basic commodity.

On a more specific note, you have absolutly no idea what's actually happening
here. I mean, I don't even know where to begin with how uninformed you are.
For what it's worth, this isn't about budgeting for future expenses. This is
about whether we honor the bills for expenses that were properly budgeted and
legally made. The idea is that defaulting on those expenses will cause the US
serious financial pain (which it will). The threat of that pain is being used
to extort concessions that failed to win support in the last election. In
essence, a distinct minority is using terrorist tactics to accomplish goals
both opposed and formally rejected by the majority.

The problem, by the way, isn't that you're totally tuned out. It's that you
don't see the problem with being totally tuned out and still having an opinion
anyway. There's nothing wrong with saying "I don't know what's going on so I
don't know what to think." But knowing not, and knowing not that you know not
is the mark of an idiot. Please, spare us.

~~~
altoz
yep. another person that's completely bought into the media narrative of
they're not playing nice, therefore it must be bad. I happen to think the
popular narrative that this will end in financial disaster to be wrong. I
think previous government shutdowns clearly show this narrative to be untrue.
your certainty that I'm ignorant or that this is a certain disaster shows
precisely how you don't get my point.

------
peterwayland
In an office environment. If employees don't work well together they get
fired. Why is there no accountability ?

~~~
yellowbkpk
There is. It happens in November every few years.

~~~
rjbwork
Wish i could get an extremely well paid job, do jack shit for 2-6 years and
then maybe get voted out at the end of that time. Hell, give me a senator's
salary for 6 years and I'd be in heaven.

~~~
mayneack
Well, fundraising is a full time job. Can't expect them to do two jobs, can
you?

------
mayneack
I remember a couple years back reading somewhere (I tried and failed to find
the article) that the Treasury Department's software wasn't actually prepared
to stop the automatic generation of checks and payments if the debt ceiling
was hit. This was for the first time that there was a "crisis" under Obama, so
I would imagine that it's been solved.

------
shmerl
Can anyone please, explain briefly what are the downsides and practical
problems that ACA will cause?

~~~
invalidOrTaken
One downside: it shafts young men uninsured through their employers (read: a
considerable part of the HN demographic) pretty hard:
[http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/14/news/economy/obamacare-
premi...](http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/14/news/economy/obamacare-
premiums/index.html)

~~~
ubernostrum
Obviously it would be better to keep things as-is, with non-employer-provided
insurance ranging from difficult to impossible to obtain at any price :)

~~~
invalidOrTaken
Well, maybe it's not a downside. One could argue that young men have life on
easy mode and _should_ be the ones to bear burdens that their advantages let
them handle more easily than others.

------
robomartin
I've actually had time over the past few weeks to spend time watching the
various duscussions in the Senate. In other words, I chose to go to the source
and take the time to understand rather than get fed a bunch of ideologically
loaded bullshit by various news outfits.

Here's reality:

Obamacare is a complete disaster. Don't take my word for it, go research what
unions are saying, what businesses are doing an go figure out what you will
have to pay and what you'll get for it.

This horrible law needs to be repealed.

We need a budget. Apparently we have not had one since 2008 or thereabouts. I
guess when you have a president who isn't even qualified to run a cookie
baking operation this is what we get. It is an absolute disgrace that we are
plunging this country deeper and deeper into debt.

Finally, Congress has failed to provide our country with responsible
governance for decades. Party affiliation does not matter here. It has
devolved it into nothing less than a circus. Given that we are locked into
this system of government the only conclusion one can reach is that we are
doomed.

This govenrment shutdown isn't a problem, no matter how much of an economic
impact it might make. Over the next 25 to 50 years this economic impact will
be absolutlely dwarfed by the devastation that will be caused by the layers of
irresponsible actions we will have to live with.

I say: Go for it! I hope people understand why it is important to take the
pain now in order to right the ship for generations to come.

~~~
Steko
"rather than get fed a bunch of ideologically loaded bullshit by various news
outfits.

Here's reality:

<a bunch of ideological bullshit>"

Take your astroturf back to Fox News.

~~~
robomartin
Have you actually watched the debates in the House and the Senate and then
compared to how they are being spun by the various TV networks? The contrast
is nothing less than disgusting.

Please, do it. Fox News is irrelevant.

As if shooting the messenger is going to refute the argument.

~~~
Steko
Sorry you didn't make an argument. You claimed to be impartial and then let
the truth slip with your tirade about Obama and right wing talking points.

You don't need to watch CSPAN to know exactly what is happening here: one half
of one branch of the government decided they wanted to take the US economy
hostage and run it back into recession if their demands weren't met.

~~~
robomartin
You are showing exactly why we are in trouble. You refuse to look at facts
and, instead elect to engage in personal attacks. I have news for you: reality
does not change in any way as you do this.

Please launch your favorite spreadsheet and do a little work to understand the
financial mess we are in. It really doesn't take that much work to speak from
a very different reference frame, one armed with facts.

~~~
Steko
You can take the imaginary high road and post as many walls of text as you
want, every reply you've gotten thinks you're just an Obama hater
regurgitating tired talk radio talking points. Good day.

------
wintersFright
[not my quote...but relevant]

In essence, America has told the world that as long as the business of this
country is functioning, your wealth, as represented in Marks, Yen, Pesos, etc.
is backed with performing US debt. It's like saying, "as long as your
neighbor, next door, does not loses his job, you will not lose all your money!

------
ck2
Costs around $50 million a day to be closed.

Imagine how many people that money could help, how much health care it could
buy.

~~~
mappu
How does that compare to how much it costs per day to be open?

~~~
001sky
1 trillion in red ink

~~~
ck2
Middle class is virtually gone, so what do you think happens when the vultures
circling see that all government protection is gone from their prey?

The red ink is from everything that is still running right now, ie. the
military industrial complex.

~~~
adventured
The red ink is from the military industrial complex and extreme over promises
made to the entitlement systems (used to buy votes for decades and decades).
The bills are coming due, and it has been obvious for decades that America
could never afford to pay them.

And worse, this is all happening without the true cost of the US debt being
taken into account. We're temporarily getting a free stimulus from hyper cheap
interest rates on about $12 trillion of debt. That debt at a mere 5% to 6%,
wipes out Social Security or the entire military.

Social chaos begins where the violation of the so called social contracts
begin. That time isn't far into the future now. The American people are just
as responsible for this mess as the politicians, if not more so. That middle
class voted this mess into being over the course of many decades, either
directly or by negligence and willful ignorance. If the American people aren't
careful, they're going to get exactly what they deserve.

------
drill_sarge
It's happening

------
pasbesoin
Well, Obama and his Administration finally made a 4th quarter, last ditch
effort -- after reading the polling tea leaves -- to appear as if they have a
spine.

However, I think both parties may be surprised in the next elections to find
just how much in disgust the U.S. public holds them.

That is, if the voters that put them there can finally remove their heads from
their asses.

A primary responsibility of government is a certain degree of stability and
predictability. We haven't had that in years.

As for the yahoos in D.C. I'm very tired of their self-serving "tantrums".
Fuck them all.

------
yapcguy
Let's keep track of what technology related services get shut down. Please
reply here.

For animal lovers out there, contrary to reports, the National Zoo's PandaCam
is still operational (as I type), so enjoy while you can!

[http://nationalzoo.si.edu/animals/webcams/giant-
panda.cfm](http://nationalzoo.si.edu/animals/webcams/giant-panda.cfm)

------
patrickg_zill
\o/

------
oleganza
Even with all the money being printed by Fed (>80 _billion_ usd per month!)
there is not enough money for the biggest military+police government on Earth.

~~~
rquantz
You have a lot of things mixed up. This isn't about not enough money. It's
about Congress having to pass a budget in order to run the government. Maybe
you're thinking of the debt ceiling?

------
avty
Now we can determine which part of government we did not miss and shut those
down permanently.

~~~
jwarkentin
Haha, exactly what I was thinking. Like the part where the IRS stops
auditing...

~~~
notdonspaulding
> Like the part where the IRS stops.

There, fixed that for you.

~~~
jwarkentin
Whoops, that's what I meant to say. Good catch!

