I guess the short answer to my question is that there is no factual answer to my question and a moderator needs to move this discussion to a different group.
If I understand the responses I’ve read so far, we are playing a big game of chicken and most people are assuming someone is going to flinch. They are probably right, but it isn’t certain.
I have some opinions, but they shouldn’t be discussed in General Questions.
I have another question about some organizations that might not be be effected by the government shutdown. Could they keep running if the Treasury stops sending them checks.
What it may come down to is to determine what is an essential service and what is not. Ensuring peace and stability means the active military, law enforcement and emergency services, federal prisons (and guards), border patrol, etc. The second tier might include those economic areas that have an immediate impact, i.e., FAA and TSA (although the FAA may shut down parts as early as this Friday in an unrelated, and yes, partisan issue), USDA food inspection, revenue collection, etc.
It’s hard-pressed where social security recipients fall in the scenario. There is the obvious political concern, but if Obama holds true to his apparent attitude he is a one-term president, then social security payouts can drop far down on the list.
As I stated earlier in this thread, the authority for one particular agency to function may be one thing, but the authority to receive/disburse funds may be subject to a different authority. Then there is the authority whether federal employees (in total or among the various agencies) can legally work, even if funds exist. As stated, this has never happened before.
Waiting in the wings, the Fed already has plans in the works in case of a default. However, we don’t know those plans but based on the Fed’s role in the greater economy it appears their role is more about stabilizing the US financial structure than outright support to people. (Watch the markets crash in a default.) This part takes on a new critical importance now that the Greek crisis shows no sign in abating. The US debt ceiling issue could exacerbate EU financial issues almost in a symbiotic relationship Perfect Storm. One tip on one continent could affect the other continent, and/or vice versa. So the US debt ceiling crisis could affect the EU just as the EU can impact the US debt ceiling crisis.
Let’s not forget federal contracting. The US Government contracts out to private companies (i.e., private citizens) for a considerable amount of work, something to the tune of 20 million private citizens being paid with federal funds. I spoke with a contracting specialist last spring during the CR (continuing resolution) issue and was told one of the first areas you stop funding in a federal economic belt-tightening is federal contracts. Federal contracts can easily be canceled, stopped, whatever, much easier than internal federal functions. It’s not inconceivable to terminate federal contracts and free up allocated but unspent contract dollars to pay for internal first tier, second tier essential services. However, that has the potential to immediately layoff millions of people, an additional problem in its own right. Then again, private companies have no qualms shedding jobs to protect themselves. So why should the federal government not to the same and terminate contracts for the same preservation reasons.
Correct on both counts. The mods have been pretty good to see where this thread goes. Perhaps the self-restraint with some straddling the line make keep this thread here. If it moves to GD, no worries.
It’s the game of chicken that will ultimately tip the balance. FWIW, I think a vocal minority within one party is so glued to their ideology that could tip us to the Dark Side. If they’re correct, the bloodletting will only be political. If they’re not correct, the bloodletting will cross all political lines, and most certainly, global lines.
Not sure of the others but the USPS should be fine.
In short anything that relies on the federal government to write a check to keep it going faces problems. Even if in theory they are self sustaining (e.g. AmTrak) if they need subsidies to run (e.g. AmTrak) they could be in trouble.
Given the below it may be said the USPS needs some government funds but mostly they are self-sustaining and of course critical to a functional country that I think the government will never threaten its existence.
NOTE: The info below is useful here but the article was written ten years ago so the USPS deficit is obviously dated (no idea what the numbers are today)
I don’t necessarily agree about what is actually vital. I would order all troops to return to base and assume a defensive posture until the crisis is resolved. It might actually be useful to give the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan a taste of what it will be like when we leave. It wouldn’t save any salaries, but it would save fuel and munitions.
As far as Airport security is concerned, I’d tell airports they are responsible for their own security, which some already are. If I was running an airport, I’d have a signup sheet for TSA employees that would be interested in making some money if they get furloughed. I suspect most airports would be back up in running in less than a week using TSA furloughed people or private security firms.
As far as the FAA is concerned, remember Reagan fired all the rank and file employees. That wasn’t much fun, but we made it through that. As far as the USDA is concerned, I would slap a sticker on all the meat and produce that it wasn’t inspected by the USDA and let people make their own choices. I was just reading the other day that Costco has started their own inspection program because they were frustrated because the USDA hadn’t updated their inspection to cover other forms of E.coli.
Well, the factual answer is that there’s no rules or precedents as to who should or shouldn’t get paid. It’s just going to be a case of the executive branch making arbitrary decisions, and individuals trying to challenge those decisions through the courts.
Incidentally, it isn’t a “government shutdown”: that’s what happened under Gingrich and Clinton in the 90s, and it nearly happened earlier this year. That’s when Congress fails to pass a budget to appropriate funds for the government, so the government has to shut down all of its services except essential ones. If the debt ceiling doesn’t get raised, it’s a different story: the government has passed a budget and is required to spend money on services, but there isn’t enough money in the coffers to pay for all of it, and Congress won’t allow it to borrow any more.
I think it would have to be Obama to prioritize spending. If Congress tells him to spend $X, but there is only $Y in the coffers, and he has no authority to raise taxes or borrow money, so he must make decisions.
Some say that he would be breaking the law by doing that, but I don’t think so. He’s got a perfect defense of impossibility. He can’t spend what he doesn’t have.
There are general federal ethics and conduct rules that prohibit federal employees from effectively moonlighting in the private world what they do in their federal job. I don’t know the specifics of the TSA. Also, the security devices in airports might not be owned by the airlines or airports, but the feds themselves. Even if private security firms could take up the human slack, they could be prohibited from using federal security tools. Just sayin’.
It’s slightly off-topic, but the question has been answered and I think it’s certainly interesting and relevant to consider the types of free market alternatives to government activities you’re suggesting in this context. I have to say, though, in the examples there I think it’s a bit absurd to suggest we could leave them to the free market. How would we feel about privately-managed airport security the first time a loved one gets killed in a terrorist attack because JFK cut back on scanner costs and missed the explosives? Remember airports have strong incentives to speed up their security process for profit. How are you supposed to “make a judgment” about what food is safe and what isn’t? It won’t feel so easy when the first time people realize their food hasn’t been safe is when, say, their kids develop nerve damage from eating meat with excess levels of lead for years. Again, food companies have profit incentives that militate against higher safety processes. There’s a reason that when it comes to health, safety and security, the public is heavily in favor of government regulation. Even maintaining a defensive posture in Iraq and Afghanistan still costs a lot of money.
I think it’s very easy to say “slash government spending”, and a lot of the public is in favor of it. Michelle Bachmann for instance had advocated that government spending should be cut by 40% starting next month. But whenever people start looking at which specific cuts would be entailed, invariably they seem to end up recoiling in horror. The public is heavily against cuts to Medicare, Social Security or defense, and defaulting on debt interest would be catastrophic. Those things alone comprise about 60% of the federal budget, and even when it comes to the other smaller programs people usually oppose actual cuts to them. President Obama cut funding to NASA this year, for instance, and a lot of Republican congressmen have been attacking him for it and a lot of the public has been disappointed by it: but if the debt ceiling wasn’t raised and government spending was cut by 40%, NASA couldn’t even exist.
In the scenarios we are discussing, I think we can assume that there are going to be a lot of laws and regulations that aren’t going to be enforced for the interim. I’m a little worried about TSA employees sabotaging the equipment on the way out the door. Just walking the door with a few components in their pockets would be enough. If they knew the airport will hire them temporarily, it might curtail that.
As I stated, there are federal ethics and conduct regs that prohibit moonlighting. However, I do not know the TSA regs on this. So you cannot assume they could be hired temporarily by a private firm to do the same job they do as federal employees. Even if it were possible, they would still be required to be vetted for security by the feds, which may not be functioning. Endless circle. It’s not that cut and dry as you make it appear.
I misspoke. I meant he fired all the controllers that walked out. Other than the maintenance people who keep the electronics up and running who else is vital? I had to go read up on the details. That was 30 years ago. It was amazing that they got the air traffic back up to 80% of prestrike levels with a fraction of the controllers in a few weeks.
The 14th Amendment requires that the US honor all debts and pensions. Article III requires that all judges appointed under that article get paid for their lifetime.
That leaves us with the question of what is a debt and pension. Is social security a pension? (I think so.) Is medicare? (Same.)
Is a Congressional paycheck or staff paycheck protected? Not as I see it.
I think that their oath to the Constitution should take precedence over their oath to Grover Norquist.
Social Security may be a pension but that is not what would be paid. The Federal government would be paying back debt it incurred when it borrowed money from Social Security.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
While it specifically includes debts and pensions for services included in the civil war, it does not limit to the civil war debts and pensions. The first clause requires that no debt authorized by law shall be questioned, the basic Hamiltonian position on all US debt. Read as a whole, this seems entirely consistent that all federal pensions cannot be dishonored, but in particular, civil war pensions cannot be dishonored. I interpret this to mean that the US cannot dishonor IOUs issued to social security for money the general fund has borrowed, nor can the the US refuse a social security pension that is vested and owed by the terms of US law. I would imagine that the 5 republican politicians making up the majority of the US Supreme Court might disagree with me, but in my opinion that would be more political hackery.
There’s no doubt that the debt in the Social Security Trust Fund is constitutionally valid.
What I’m saying is that US commitments to Social Security “pensions” (and I disagree that Social Security is a pension, it is a social insurance program) are constitutionally guaranteed, which is what you seem to be saying. I’m saying that Social Security benefits can be changed at any time through a change in law, and that 14th Amendment does not restrict that.