Not because of this individual incident, but because this incident is one of a series of patently manufactured political crises in Washington. Every country has its one-off difficulties, since people are people. Unstable countries, corrupt countries, and countries with poorly designed governments have a lot of them.
Your definition of “a lot” is probably different than mine, as is your definition of “manufactured crisis.” In my mind, a manufactured crisis is where the run-of-the-mill political games start to have an effect on the economy and / or get large enough to embarrass us in the international media, who don’t normally report the minor reindeer games politicians play.
The reason I think this is a problem is because it comes so closely on the heels of past non-event crises such as the debt ceiling negotiations. If we spaced these things out a bit more, say once a decade, they would not matter.
It’s significant because the the “full faith and credit” of the U.S backstops the global economy. The U.S dollar is the global reserve currency and foreign investors like China and Japan buy our debt. By showing the world that we’re willing to sink the global economy because we don’t want a medical device tax or want to delay healthcare for millions of Americans, we’re essentially shooting our country (and the world) in the head. Unless Republicans pass a clean CR, Obama should let them kill the economy and let Voters sort it out next November. Let Voters continue to vote in these narcissistic assholes so we can continue this cycle over and over again. We’re the “laughing stock” because we forcibly export democracy to other countries (e.g. Japan, Iraq, et al) while proving to the world that democracy does not work and that it may be democracy - not communism or a dictatorship - that’ll crash the global economy. This does nothing to bring any country or ally to our side.
And why aren’t Republicans concerned about making the Democrats back down, when Democrats won the Presidential election, increased the Democratic control of the Senate, and Americans gave a million more votes to Democratic House candidates than their opponents?
Sure, you can say that the Democrats need to think of how to allow the GOP to save face and back down gracefully, but give me one single indication of how Republicans are thinking about how to save Democratic prospects in mid-term elections.
But, again, since we did this unimportant-partial-shutdown thing repeatedly in the '90s, and did it repeatedly in the '80s easy as doing it repeatedly in the '70s, aren’t we proving the exact opposite? That democracy does, in fact, work – as evidenced by how these exceedingly minor situations just sort of come and go in a checks-and-balances system where elected officials stake out their respective positions before eventually saying Come, Let Us Reason Together?
So what the heck are we demonstrating? That decades of debate-fueled gridlock are 100% compatible with routinely punching above one’s weight on everything from GDP to Nobel Prizes while guarding the world’s best universities with the world’s largest air force and the world’s largest blue-water navy?
(And, sure, maybe those aren’t your metrics of choice – but whatever your metrics of choice, what do these periodic and trivial lacunae have to do with 'em? Haven’t we just kept on keeping on in much the same way for lo these many decades regardless of how many nonessential workers are on the job?)
Ok. Here’s the problem. There have only been 2 shutdowns of note - they occurred under Gingrich and now. The other ones did not involve blackmail by one party or another. I suspect there are other differences, but that is the key one.
The other shutdowns can be and were ignored. But when the GOP says that they will put a gun to the head of the economy unless the Democrats hand over the goods - and then that will make the Democrats the guilty parties - outside investors start to wonder whether the US is really an especially stable political economy. And if the US government starts defaulting on payments and the economy craters, I’d expect greater attention towards international asset diversification. More: Your Sunday Shutdown Reader #2 - The Atlantic
ETA3: One Republican congressman was quoted as saying he thinks that debt default would add to economic stability. Republicans who fear their primary more than the general election have incentive to spout nonsense and refuse compromise. This is a relatively new development.
I am a conservative but I have very little respect for politicians in general…republican or democratic. The house and senate is filled with nothing but temporary politicians whose main goal is to get reelected while paying lip-service to the underlying ideology.
No, that would make you a criminal. You can’t claim that the pubs trying to extract something in budget negotiations is the equivalent of threatening to burn down a house. The pubs made and offer that the dems rejected. The pubs came back twice with lowered expectations and didn’t even get a conversation with the senate. I realize that, to you, any republican change to ACA is the equivalent of burning down your house. But, just because you believe that does not make it so.
Actually, they do have this level of power. And the senate has the power to say no and the end result is that the whole government is shut down.
Don’t forget that before the age of Obama the budget was a piecemeal effort with a number of appropriations passed for a few agencies at a time. Some would pass and others would be fought over. To suggest that the entire budget must be passed all at once, or nothing at all, is crazy talk. This was regular order in congress until we started funding by CR.
It’s probably meh since the amount of spending that has been curtailed is something like 17-18%. It sucks for those affected, but if you are not directly affected then 18% is not a lot of belt tightening.
You’re leaving out a few key points: the original House proposal was amended by a majority vote in the Senate, and sent to the House. The other two House proposals with “lowered expectations” were rejected by roll call, majority votes in the Senate. The Senate proposal has never received a vote in the House, and there are plenty of news outlets that have done whip counts which show that the Senate proposal would pass the House if it were allowed to have a vote.
Obama has proposed a budget plan for all government agencies. The House has only marked up 9 out of 11 appropriations bills. If the House doesn’t even mark up appropriations bills for those other agencies, you can’t blame Obama for putting government spending for those agencies on autopilot!
The only issue here is the entire budget for the next six weeks, not the whole year. The House proposal to select certain agencies to fund isn’t even accurate: it is to pick certain parts of certain agencies to fund. For example, VA benefits: the House wants VA disability claims processors to go back to work. But guess what: those people can’t adjudicate claims unless they get information from Social Security, the IRS, and other agencies, which are NOT covered by the House piecemeal approach to funding the government in the short term.
It’s total waste and abuse to put certain Federal offices back to work, but not others. If Dems proposed this, you’d be screaming bloody murder, but I guess the shoe is on the convenient foot at this particular moment.
In a parliamentary system, you can afford to have highly ideological politicians because there usually is a coalition agreement requiring their principles to be compromised. Also, when the executive is a creature of the legislature, any conflict between the two is short-lived. But in a presidential separation-of-powers system like ours, too much ideology leads to paralysis. The US Constitution has been uniquely successful, compared to other presidential systems, precisely because the politicians paid lip service to ideology.
The founding fathers did not anticipate parties, much less ideological ones. Their plan for government requires getting along to go along.
The thing that makes me “meh” is one I don’t like, but it’s true. I know that nothing is going to happen until the last possible moment, so there’s no point in even caring as someone watching what’s going on until then.
We have a congress of brinksmanship. And while I hate that the Democrats can’t compromise, I just don’t see any other way besides refusing to compromise to stop this. Because every time we get close to the brink, we make it more likely that we go on over.
It just sucks that we have to drive it to the brink again to have any chance in stopping this.
As I said, the so-called “shutdown” isn’t affecting any but a small portion of all citizens. This is merely a reminder that the FedGov has little direct impact on their day to day lives, and that’s as it should be.
To the vast majority of the public, this is little more than a blip on their daily radar. One would think that if people really paused and thought about it, they’d wonder why they need most of the Federal government at all. The answer is, they don’t, despite how desperately Washington wants/needs them to.
Sure, we’ll hear all the sob stories about “xyz” not getting what they, personally, need/want from Washington, but they are a small but vocal minority, no matter what some would like us to think.
Expansionary fiscal and monetary policy stopped the financial crisis of 2007-2008 from turning into the Great Depression. Instead, insufficient fiscal policy has delivered us a lost decade. The actions of the government can be highly consequential but neither clear nor obvious to somebody not immersed in economic statistics.