Not sure if you’re using hyperbole to express frustration with some particular regulatory issue(s) you have encountered, or if you haven’t thought through the consequences of a complete absence of the federal government.
To be clear, the federal government has Constitutional authority for regulatory actions that affect interstate commerce. Do you think these have been applied too broadly? How would you narrow them? Is air and water pollution (which does not respect State boundaries) a fair area for Federal intervention? Or should States just sue States or businesses that are upwind/upstream? Would that be cheaper than a uniform regulatory framework? More predictable (business interests often complain most about unpredictability)?
I don’t believe you want to get rid of the entire bureaucracy (why the hell is that a dirty word, BTW?). I don’t really believe the GOP mainstream or the Tea Party/Libertarian wing of the GOP wants to eliminate the government, either. Or at least not when one gets down to enumerating particular things, rather than some nebulous Gummint bogey monster (“Government should get its hands of my Medicare, dammit!”).
If you’re willing to accept some kind of regulation, I will paraphrase a (no-doubt apocryphal) quote by some famous Englishman (Churchill?): we’ve established what kind of person you are, now we’re just haggling about price. Which I think is the proper thing to do. The 2 major parties should negotiate and compromise on the responsibilities of government. But I suppose that assumes that they can agree that the government has some role in helping to solve some problems. If they can’t agree on that, I think we’re screwed.
Also, the number of government employees as a fraction of the population fell significantly in Obama’s first term (Forbes, Soci^H^H^H^H Capitalist Tool). Mostly, that’s due to State and local cuts during the Great Recession. Before that, the ratio was pretty stable for most of 30 years, so the idea that the Bureaucracy (boo!) has grown out of control is mythological.
I don’t know if this is just bluster or a serious threat. But it’s depressing, because it shows that the GOP is still more interested in fucking with Obama than doing any actual governing.
That article is bizarre. It’s basically “Mitch McConnell admits supporting things that Mitch McConnell has always supported” presented as some kind of gotcha.
On a simply mechanical level a federal government shutdown means a very large number of people who are employed by the federal government are not working or being paid. (Quibble if you must about WHY so many people are employed by the federal government, the fact is that they are.) Do you personally wish for all of the individuals to be unemployed? Do you wish for the economic impact of the dollars not flowing through the economy? Be careful what you wish for…
Agreed. A sudden catastrophic shutdown would be extremely damaging. A gradual decrease in government size could be made to work. We’ve seen, in the past, hiring slow-downs, where, if ten people left a given department, only nine people were hired to replace them.
I wonder if the people in Ohio, drinking algae-contaminated water, really agree with McConnell that the EPA should be dismantled? And will military cuts also be part of his anti-government crusade?