The Cost of the US Government Shutdown To Science 355
An anonymous reader writes "Richard Schiffman writes in The Guardian that the Republican-led shutdown of the U.S. government caused significant damage to many scientific programs. For example: shortly before the shutdown started, over a hundred scientists had gathered to perform critical equipment tests on the James Webb Space Telescope — Hubble's successor — and that work was unable to continue without the government around. 'Not only did this delay cost the program an estimated $1M a day, but, given NASA's tight schedule, some tests may never get done now.' It doesn't stop there: 'This is only one of untold thousands of projects that were mothballed when Congress's failure to approve a budget defunded the US government at the start of the month. Federal websites were taken offline, scientists couldn't receive emails, attend meetings, or interact with their colleagues. Crucial environmental, food safety and climate monitoring programs were either suspended, or substantially scaled back.' Schiffman provides a few more examples, including one project that's losing a year's worth of work and equipment that will end up buried under snow in Antarctica. But it goes beyond even the basic funding issues; in many cases, scientific work is simply too intertwined with the government to continue without it. Andrew Rosenberg, the director of the Union of Concerned Scientists' center for science and democracy, said, 'It is all so interconnected now. Federal researchers collect data that is utilized by researchers in academia, by people working in industry, at state and local levels, so when you ask how dependent are we on the federal government in terms of science, it's a bit like asking: do you need your left leg?'"
Better model needed (Score:5, Interesting)
Science is too important to be dependent on a funding source that is 17 trillion dollars in debt. It's *all* going to dry up at some point, and probably rather suddenly when it does. Talk to the history department if this is unclear.
With all the great thinkers in science, perhaps research into better funding models would be worth the effort.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Kickstarter!
Re: (Score:3)
Also, just putting this out there, and sorry if it ruffles any
Re: (Score:2)
One issue is that it's hard to explain highly technical experiments within the required 6 pages or so for a grant, let alone something that a crowd would be willing to read.
But a reasonable thing to expect.
but funding from the federal government is still more reliable than crowdfunding
The government doesn't even care if you don't make any sort of scientific progress at all. If a truck were to back into the James Webb Space Telescope and hopelessly total it, there would some blame finding (with the truck driver instantly fired and some other people after a suitable period of public reflection via committee), but the end result would be a collective shrug and the signing of new checks. That's because most of the money for JWST has been spent. As far as Con
Re: (Score:2)
The answer is to find a better model for how government operates. 17 trillion is a problem for more than just science. And shutting down government in order to make a political statement is flat out deranged.
Re:Better model needed (Score:5, Insightful)
17 trillion dollars sounds like a shipload of money, but you have to put in perspective: It's not that much compared with the GDP of the US. Given how gigantic the US is in terms of assets and operations, and in political and economic power, 17 trillion is quite ok.
The biggest structural problem the US has is its insane right. The debt ceiling standoff was very, very dangerous, far more dangerous than even 20 trillion $ of debt would be. It would have taken very little additional bad luck to triger a financial calamity of biblical proportions.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
17 trillion dollars sounds like a shipload of money, but you have to put in perspective: It's not that much compared with the GDP of the US.
LOL. Maybe to a galaxy spanning civilization this would be small potatoes, but it's kind of big for the US.
The biggest structural problem the US has is its insane right.
They keep holding back the suicidal left which is a bad thing apparently.
The debt ceiling standoff was very, very dangerous, far more dangerous than even 20 trillion $ of debt would be.
As I noted elsewhere, anyone who cared about a few week default of US on short term bonds had already sold them off.
It would have taken very little additional bad luck to triger a financial calamity of biblical proportions.
Reminds me of that Heinlein quote about "bad luck". There's a simple solution here: spend less at the federal level and stop getting in the way of people who create wealth.
Re:Better model needed (Score:5, Informative)
Had G.W. Bush not gone nuts giving his buddies tax breaks and if he hadn't dragged the U.S. into another war, we wouldn't have that debt now. When Clinton left office, we were slowly paying it down.
So yeah, crazy Republicans.
Re: (Score:3)
So, how do I get my mortgage and car payments 'off budget' so the bank won't count them against me? Are you saying the money just materialized on his desk?
And under Clinton, the deficit did briefly go negative.
The deficit is currently positive but declining.
I'm not claiming the Democrats are perfect, but I know how to read a graph and the deficit most certainly trends down for all Democratic presidents since Carter and up for the Republicans.
The other 8 trillion happened under Bush's watch as well, regardle
Re:What are you talking about ? (Score:5, Informative)
Very true. However, it's nowhere near as bad as the private debt to GDP ratio, and that's bad in all countries (except maybe Japan, which has be deleveraging for 20 years). It also isn't necessarily a Bad Thing, since one of the most important roles of government is to spend in a recession and tax in a boom economy. The problem is the fools who were running a deficit in a boom economy.
Most importantly, austerity has the opposite of the desired effect on the debt-to-GDP ratio, because it reduces the GDP faster than the debt [businessspectator.com.au]. It's counter intuitive, but it's an empirical fact.
Re:What are you talking about ? (Score:4, Informative)
The problem with unmoderated "tax and spend" is that eventually you run out of other people's money. Then the problems get really bad. Much of the Western world is heading in that direction. Things that can't continue, won't.
Could we please consign this piece of trite Thatcherism to that rubbish pile of history where it belongs? Even the UKians don't believe it any longer and where ever it's been tried, it's lead to the same problems we are facing in the west at the moment. I.e. that the "landed gentry" has amassed more and more and more of the total wealth, and even in capitalist terms, this wealth doesn't do much productive (or at least not as much as it would do in the hands of others).
And that's just for starters.
Re:Better model needed (Score:5, Insightful)
Limit campaign funding
Curtail Lobbying
Impose term limits
Realize corporations "are not people too.."
Improve education
Re: (Score:2)
Thinking of spending without thinking of revenue is just plain stupid.
Government shutdown, by hurting revenues, actually increases deficit and exacerbates the problem.
Re:Better model needed (Score:5, Insightful)
I can hold my breath for a brief time and not suffer in the slightest for it. According to you that means oxygen isn't needed.
Re: (Score:3)
I have no doubt there is pork an waste in the government. The shutdown does not demonstrate that nor point to where it might be.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they will. We know that with the grand bargain talks in 2011. Their have been numerous proposals put forth by Democrats to shift and decrease spen
Re: (Score:3)
You realize that the deficit has been steadily falling, right? Like most Democratic presidents, Obama is making steady progress on that front. If yopu want to look at the people who routinely blow the budget, look at the Republicans.
Re: (Score:2)
but several of the people operating under that banner have other agendas
First time ever that someone had an ulterior motive! Unless your tastes are so particular and refined or your groups highly select so as to exclude anyone else other than you, then maybe your associations have this problem as well.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Funny how the racists always leave out the part about the white president leaving the country spinning into a massive depression loosing 750,000/jobs month, and that the spending was to avoid an all-out depression.
Re: (Score:3)
People who cared about the deficit have been complaining since Reagan was in office, and against Republican spending sprees. The democrats have been the fiscally responsible spenders since the early 80's when Reagan began the deficit spiral.
This is new, and only happend after a black guy got elected. Joining the Republicans for deficit responsibility shows the utter ignorance and racism in those involved.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And the alternative - corporate funded research - is immune from financial instability and PBHs deciding what is and isn't studied?
*The* alternative? Nobody could think up something better? We have lots of smart people on this planet - I'm hopeful that somebody can think up a way to fund science that involves neither one nor 435 PHB's making such decisions.
Re: (Score:3)
If somebody gives you money to do something, there's always the risk that they'll try to stick their noses in. Doesn't matter if it's a government, a corporation, or an eccentric billionaire.
You could go around to rich people's homes, steal all their money, and use that to fund your research. The rich people would have absolutely no way to interfere with your research. You'd be your own boss. There are some moral problems with this approach, which I frankly think are overblown, but the bigger problem is the
Re: (Score:3)
Going around to rich people's houses and stealing money...
This is what some people call taxes.
Government collects them and decides how they are spent.
Re: (Score:2)
*The* alternative? Nobody could think up something better? We have lots of smart people on this planet - I'm hopeful that somebody can think up a way to fund science that involves neither one nor 435 PHB's making such decisions.
The simplest way is to prohibit free access to publicly-collected data and research outcomes (papers, presentations, etc.) and instead require direct and immediate payment for anyone to see the data concerned. Then it can all become a self-financing activity.
A very large number of businesses would utterly hate that.
The real problem is that there's plenty going on, but it can't be done for free, for nothing. It's too hard to do and (overall) too important to leave to the random whims of gentlemen amateurs; t
Re:Better model needed (Score:4, Insightful)
Even more than the fiscal unreliability, the big problem with government funding is that it makes science a political football, with brain-dead demagogues getting to decide what is and isn't studied according to their religion.
The structural problems go even deeper than that. The demagogues don't actually directly interfere that often, although it's especially annoying when they do. The bigger problems are a) the supply-and-demand problem created by poor and/or inconsistent government policy, and b) the uncertainty created by crises like the shutdown and the sequester. Naturally, neither of these problems is unique to government service! People working for companies have the same problems all the time, and I can't imagine that being stalked by MBAs much more fun than worrying about Congress. But most scientists in the public sector have made an implicit trade: we accept lower salaries in exchange for decent benefits, decent job security, and the freedom to study what excites us without worrying about "how do I bring this to market within 18 months?" Most of us spent our 20s in school just to qualify for these jobs - which is not quite as bad as it sounds (we get a small stipend at least, and flexible hours), but most academics postpone having children until relatively late, and we get to watch our more financially motivated peers make vastly more money, often with less formal education. The base starting salary for an NIH-funded postdoctoral fellow is $40,000; that is by definition someone with a PhD, usually around 30 years old. There are some truly mediocre postdocs out there, but many brilliant ones - and if they want an academic career, they basically have no choice but to spend several years in such a position. Meanwhile, their friends with real jobs are probably making at least twice as much.
On top of this, the success rate for grants has dropped precipitously, and the sequester has made it even worse. The biomedical research sector grew with NIH funding, and now that funding is contracting, there are more people competing for less money. So even the long-term job security isn't very good any more.
I'm relatively lucky; I managed to only spend a little more than a year as a postdoc before getting a more permanent position, and the research group I work for is well-funded, non-controversial, and very successful in our field. But I still make tends of thousands less than my grad school friends who work in industry. And it's far from certain that we'll continue to get funding. More importantly, a large fraction of the people who control the purse strings think I'm a lazy, useless welfare queen, and want to close down the department I work for and send our jobs to China. Or, barring that, they're happy to do that temporarily just out of spite because they think the Heritage Foundation's healthcare plan is a socialist takeover. So, after spending most of my adult life working overtime (unpaid, of course) while assuring myself that the implicit bargain was worth it, leaving academia is not a hard decision for me to make. Fuck this, if you want to treat me like shit and continually threaten me with unemployment, you'd better fucking pay me for it. None of the public (certainly none of Congress) understands what I do anyway, so why should I care whether or not I'm contributing to human health and knowledge?
Re: (Score:3)
The funding problem seems to be harder than the science itself nowadays. There's so much science and technology research we could be doing, but aren't, or at a very slow pace. The main issue is finding funding for fundamental research (for which applications haven't yet been found) and research with a very long payoff period. Historically, this is the type of research that has enabled the bulk of our rapid progress in the last couple of centuries. However, governments around the world are under pressure to
Re: (Score:3)
Historically, this is the type of research that has enabled the bulk of our rapid progress in the last couple of centuries.
No, it hasn't. As I've noted many times before, that fundamental research of the past had near future application at the time. This often devolves into a game of people naming research and then I countering with the near future expectations that people doing or funding that research would have had.
I partially agree with you, since government funded research basically always has at least one fairly near-term application in mind. However, I think you underestimate how poor we are at predicting how useful basic research will or will not become. There are plenty of examples of fundamental advancements that were offshoots of other projects. Take the laser, as a relatively recent example (50 years); no one understood the full implications of developing the laser, they basically made one because they realiz
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
17 trillion in debt, borrowed at negative effective interest rates... I need problems like that.
Re:Better model needed (Score:4, Informative)
That funding source also has the unlimited ability to print money. And there is no source more viable than the government.
Re: (Score:2)
Then bin the horrible excuse of an income tax and replace it with a national sales tax so everyone pays tax.
Even the FairTax people (who advocate a National Income Tax) recognize that everybody pays the income tax, at a rate of 22-23% on top of their base rate, as being embedded in the cost of goods. It's horribly regressive, for that reason.
The best way to deal with the Income Tax is to repeal the 16th Amendment and not replace it with anything. Let the States do what they will.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly.
The answer is first SHRINK IT. Then bin the horrible excuse of an income tax and replace it with a national sales tax so everyone pays tax.
Sales tax is unfairly regressive. It hurts the poor far more than the rich.
Look at this list of departments and agencies and tell me you have even a clue at what half of these do for us taxpayers - and how they don't overlap other federal or state agencies. The size of the federal government is obese and needs to be put on a diet. Simply getting rid of departments and agencies that do not have to be at the federal level would be a good starting place (e.g. Dept of Education). Others like pure science, NASA, etc. should remain at the federal level.
http://www.usa.gov/directory/federal/ [usa.gov]
There are very strong arguments for why education should be regulated at a national level. Also, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with having overlap between federal and state agencies.
Thank you (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You're welcome. Please remember to vote in 2014 and 2016.
Re: (Score:2)
Right! After all, we don't get anything from those leeches...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For this G.O.P. and Tea Party, the cut back in research is considered a victory, not the least that climate research has been cut back. They and their fellow travelers, the Libertarians, have no use for government funded research.
As for finding other sources of funding, nothing comparable to the fed. dollars is on the horizon anywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Thank you (Score:5, Informative)
> CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED BUDGET
The idea that Congress is constitutionally mandated to prepare a budget is one of many tea party memes that is easily debunked. The fact is the word budget doesn't even appear in the Constitution. Here's what factcheck.org has to say about it:
http://www.factcheck.org/2013/03/palins-constitutional-stretch/ [factcheck.org]
Here is what the Constitution says about it:
Article I, Section 9, Clause 7: No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
In addition, as John McCain recently pointed out, Congress has not followed a basic budgeting process for 20 years. Your attempt to stick this on Obama and Reid is moronic and unjustified by any reference in the Constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Thank you (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, yes, the conversation that lead to the shutdown was one sided. There could have been two sides to it, but one side got crowded out by billionaire funded insanity. Take back control of your party from the tea party. I'm a hardcore liberal, but I'd welcome a real two sided argument in Washington any day over what we have now.
The fundamental problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Is that the government is spending too much money. It doesn't matter how you try to spin this, the fact of the matter is they need to start cutting costs.
Notice I'm not blaming one party over another. I just think the American people are doing a disservice to themselves when they accept mud-slinging in order to distract them from this fact. Keep your eye on the ball and demand that *any* party that is elected into power balance the budget and start paying back the debt.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the government spends too much, but it is a large government and can walk and chew gum at the same time. 2/3's of the budget is entitlements. Even SS is now in the red every year. It still has its trust fund, but those are government I.O.U.s. The government has to borrow when those get cashed.
From The Congressional Research Service: Federal Research and Development Funding, FY2012 research funding was $138.869 Billion (actually a lot higher than I figured). Obama requested for FY2013 $140.820 Billion.
Re: (Score:2)
The taxes used to pay for Defense knock off more points of the GDP.
I generally favor federal funding for basic scientific research because I suspect has one of the best ROIs for all federal spending. But even that is merely a guess. Nobody knows whether it actually does.
Can someone explain why websites were down? (Score:2)
Can someone explain why websites were taken down during the shutdown? I would have thought that the expenditure needed to keep a site up and running would already have been paid in advance, and that the sites were not so fragile that they could have withstood 2 weeks unattended operation.
Was it a precautionary or political matter?
Re: (Score:3)
Because if Skynet had infiltrated the government web servers, then no one would have been around to spread the alarm.
Jeez, you Australians just don't understand risk management, do you?
Re: (Score:2)
I would have thought that the expenditure needed to keep a site up and running would already have been paid in advance, and that the sites were not so fragile that they could have withstood 2 weeks unattended operation.
What? You should be checking sites several times a day. Hopefully, via an automated system... which you're going to have to check up on periodically.
Re: (Score:3)
JPL is not a government-run organization. It's run by CalTech. However sites like The FCC and NASA were down.
Honestly it probably cost way more to take the sites down and put up a "we're not home" page than it would have to leave them running with no updates. It's a political thing. It's the government's way of trying to influence public opinion on the shutdown.
Killer bees (Score:2)
Why Not Fund Things Individually? (Score:2)
Who runs their own life this way? (Score:2)
So here's a question. Let's say you happen to have a full time job that pays you $50k a year. On January 1, do you look at all the bills you know you're going to have for the entire year and all the things you want to buy and spend all of that money on January 1? Or do you take all the money you have to spend on bills and put it aside somewhere so you don't inadvertently spend it on something else like a Ferrari? Or do you deal with things one month at a time?
Does it occur to anyone (Score:3)
.... that this kind of dependence on government funding means that government will increasingly assert control over where and how research will be conducted in the future, and how (or whether) results will be reported? If your project's existence depends on a particular paymaster, are you really going to jeopardize it by angering him? Maybe you're okay with the present party in power, but if you give government this kind of control over your funding, sooner or later people with opposing ideas are going to be in charge and will use those same levers in ways you won't be happy with.
Re: (Score:3)
Who else has the money?
Giant corporations?
A few foreign governments?
this government just wastes and they don't care (Score:2)
from 1990 to 2012 u.s government revenue a year was about 2 trillion(1990) to 3+ trillion 2012, about 40+ trillion in taxes for the past 23 years collected. And yet, we still can't have a universal healthcare system like Canada. Where did all the fucking money go to??? SS full of IOU's since government put their grabby hands in it to pay for other things. We don't need any more new fucking taxes on the books since money just disappears from the government so easily. I guess government does not care abou
Re: (Score:2)
You and third world dictators love their slushfunds. Government auditors don't though.
Re: (Score:2)
Not expending 100% of funds and taking on as much risk as possible is not even close to the same thing as having a "slush fund". And government auditors do not care if you fail to expend 100% of funds and money goes back to the taxpayer.
Re: (Score:2)
"Not having money" wasn't even the problem here. A shutdown means that they're not authorized to operate at all.
Except for the NSA, because they provide an essential service.
Re: (Score:2)
And make no mistake: that reflects the administration's preferences, not any kind of legal necessity.
Re: (Score:2)
that's not how the government shutdown in USA style works.
they might have their budgeted money on their accounts. they just would't be allowed to spend it - because the shutdown wouldn't have the same negotiating aspect otherwise. it's just all games and a symptom about how dysfunctional the system is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
To redirect back on topic: why does it seem like everything the federal government does was declared "essential" and not affected EXCEPT for science? I don't hear a lot of discussion about what rules need to be changed for the next shutdown. Here's my suggestion: in the event of a shutdown, absolutely no congressional support services will be provided. No staffers can answer the phone from their congresspeople. No electricity in the capitol. No fucking gym open. No paychecks including back pay for congress persons. No security guards will be protecting the reps. None. Congressmen can hold meetings at a starbucks or something if they feel like it. Conversely, science research will absolutely not be affected.
I'd start a petition on change.org or writing a letter to congress urging that, but I think my time might better be spent wishing on a star.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because making "Science!" unessential could be parlayed into news articles.
Face it, a news article about the fact that government bureacrats had to empty their own trash wouldn't have nearly the appeal of "This Science! project was delayed by two weeks, and some of it may NEVER be done now! It was going to cure death, but now we've lost any chance of that, thanks to those EVIL Republicans!!!"
Note that running the National Parks was also considered nonessential, even to the extent that a lot of EXTRA work was done to shut them down - I especially like the traffic cones blocking the highway shoulders OUTSIDE Mount Rushmore - only put up in places from which someone could pull off the road (outside the Park, remember?) to take photos of Mount Rushmore....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If it is outside of the national park area then it is under the jurisdiction of the state government, none of which shut down during this period. If it really came down to that, they could have just dispatched their state troopers just like anything else.
This is just a stupid typical politician move to get people to pay attention to them. This is also why we can't have a balanced budget: Instead of taking away useless programs, they decide to cut funding from things that people will complain the loudest abo
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is just a stupid typical politician move to get people to pay attention to them. This is also why we can't have a balanced budget: Instead of taking away useless programs, they decide to cut funding from things that people will complain the loudest about, that way they can keep all of their pet projects.
Add up Social Security, Medicare, interest on the debt, the Defense Department, and Veteran's Affairs. Subtract tax revenues. You're already way into red ink. I'm not counting the CDC, FEMA, FDA, NIH, or any of the other nickle-and-dime line items.
So, according to your definition of "useless programs," which would you propose to cut? Social Security? Medicare? Veterans Affairs? Do please be specific.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
The tea baggers have prevented the gov. from raising taxes, even though they are at an all time low.
In addition, teabaggers and neo-cons constantly blocked cuts that they did not like.
for example, both teabaggers/neo-cons continue to push the SLS which will cost us 30B and not be ready until 2022 at the earliest (it is now expected for man's first flight on it at 2025, and several studies say that it will run closer to 50B). So, where are they getting the money for this nightmare? By gutting private space inside of NASA. Even now, when it was agreed to that private space would get a TOTAL of 2B, for funding 3 companies to be ready by 2015, the neo-cons cut that and has forced NASA to limit the downselect to ONE private space company.
Then we have again, both neo-cons/teabaggers pushing the nightmare of keeping our M1A1 tank lines going. Yet, the DOD IS SCREAMING THAT IT IS NOT THE RIGHT EQUIPMENT FOR FUTURE wars. Worse, we have plenty of core M1A1 tanks. But the house is blocking the stoppage of the line.
It continues over and over and over.
The problem is not that we are not making spending cuts.
| The real problem is that 49 teabaggers in the house are blocking compromise on ANYTHING from happening, and the neo-cons are going along because the teabaggers are threatening them at the next election.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To redirect back on topic: why does it seem like everything the federal government does was declared "essential" and not affected EXCEPT for science?
Because the standard used for "essential" is "Would stopping this put life and limb into immediate jeopardy?" As you'll note from the constant complaints about science funding or the lack thereof, spending on scientific research and development is the epitome of a long term investment, which generally means that turning it off won't cause any immediate hospitalizations.
And everyone wants to see their own special interest declared "essential." The Tea Party wanted the exception to be certain war monuments,
Re: (Score:3)
An open air memorial that is normally open 24/7 and actually took resources to close, while leaving it open would not have?
Groundskeeping, maintenance and security are not free. The federal government is charged with maintaining (i.e. not abandoning) the sites, and the cheapest and easiest way to maintain anything is to close off public access.
Re: (Score:3)
An open air memorial that is normally open 24/7 and actually took resources to close, while leaving it open would not have?
I even got you some numbers to satisfy my own curiosity:
According to the National Park Service's FY13 Greenbook [nps.gov], the National Mall and adjoining shrines and memorials (which include the National World War II Memorial) are treated as a single item and cost the National Park Service $32,282,000 to maintain in 2012, or over $88,200 each day.
These costs do not include Park Police, which are listed as a separate $79,763,000 expenditure in the DC area alone in '12.
Re: (Score:2)
How exactly are you going to strip congress of the authority to declare staff essential? Moreover, frankly congressmen being able to get information I'd consider a heck of a lot more essential than things that did remain open like air travel. If congress is cut off from their staff we don't have the capacity for the democracy to respond to new and changing information.
The shutdown is stupid. Let's not make it more stupid by breaking important stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Right. And the house gym was essential because house members are too cheap to lease a proper Washington apartment. They live in their offices, and the place would be a little rank if they couldn't shower for free.
Re: (Score:3)
Congress is on track to work 119 days this year. Long hours? Hah!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's nice. If you want to remove it, pass it on the house, pass it in the senate, then have the president sign it.
Any other way is contrary to way our government works and is supposed to work.
Re: (Score:2)
That's likely.
Re:The reason why you're a moron (Score:5, Informative)
At least half the fucking country wants to see Obamacare go. Even many idiot liberals who have been Obama cheerleaders for years, are starting to change their minds after getting their (greatly increased) Obamacare quote.
Ooooo, an easily testable claim! Let's get the latest poll numbers.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/327937-poll-obamacare-gains-popularity-amid-shutdown [thehill.com]
"The survey released Thursday found 38 percent of people believe ObamaCare is a good idea"
"A plurality of people, however, continue to have a negative view of the law. Forty-three percent think it is a bad idea, including 38 percent who feel strongly about their decision. And 17 percent have no opinion. "
43% is less than "At least half the fucking country", but it's more than the people who support, so I'll kind of give you that one, cause the real key number is next...
"Only 23 percent of people would continue a government shutdown in order to strip funding from the law."
If you're going to pretend to be doing things on behalf of the people, at least pay attention to what they're saying.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The reason why you're a moron (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The reason why you're a moron (Score:5, Insightful)
it sounds like you've put yourself in a shitty situation and prefer to blame others for it rather than accepting responsibility.
Bonus: I only had to look one page back in his comment history to find this gem:
"That's because you're a poor person, who will always be poor, thanks to your poor person mentality."
So, when other people are poor, it's because they're lazy and stupid; when he's poor, it's because the evil leftist government is oppressing him.
Re: (Score:3)
So you choose to speed, and drive without mandated insurance, and somehow this is government oppression that you be forced to not endanger others or maintain liability insurance, and then when cited for it, ignored the penalties and act like a victim when the consequences of your actions catch you?
Seriously, you're part of the problem in this country.
Re: (Score:2)
At least half the fucking country wants to see Obamacare go
Yes, and half of those want it replaced with a far more progressive plan, e.g. national single-payer insurance. Far less than half of the country supports the Republican position that Obamacare is a radical leftist policy that must be destroyed at all costs.
Obama decides to declare martial law and arrest the GOP
This also has no basis in reality whatsoever. If you want to convince people that Obamacare is a bad idea, you'll have a much easier time
Re: (Score:2)
he chose to ram through his health care reform without bipartisan support
In partial defense, what was he supposed to do? The Democrats basically took the plan created by the Heritage Foundation and enacted by Mitt Romney in MA, because they thought that was the most progressive reform that could win any Republican support. (And contrary to what progressives might think, it was probably the most that could rely on support from the more conservative Democrats.) The Republicans said no anyway. So should Ob
Re: (Score:2)
He probably shouldn't have antagonized the Republicans from the start. He might have done more horse trading and made more sacrifices elsewhere: the budget, gay rights, financial regulation, whatever.
Where he could have become active is scale back the abuses of the Bush era, the NSA, and all the other things he promised to do but has failed to. Health care reform could have waited a little longer.
Or he could have simply n
Re:Why? (Score:4, Interesting)
He probably shouldn't have antagonized the Republicans from the start. He might have done more horse trading and made more sacrifices elsewhere: the budget, gay rights, financial regulation, whatever.
As far as the budget was concerned, he was in a rough spot with the economy - it was just spectacularly bad timing for dealing with budget problems. I'm not convinced that changing his mind on financial regulation or gay rights would have done any good, since the steps he took in those directions were fundamentally so small. And from what I can remember, the repeal of DADT was the first major policy change on gay rights and that came well after the Obamacare passage.
Where he could have become active is scale back the abuses of the Bush era, the NSA, and all the other things he promised to do but has failed to.
God, I wish - this was the main reason I voted for him in 2008 and he has been a spectacular disappointment on these issues, which is why I stayed home in 2012. But, again in partial defense, even his good-faith efforts were blindly opposed by the GOP, which went out of its way to prevent him from closing down Guantanamo. (Admittedly with some Democratic support, and may those legislators rot in hell.)
Health care reform could have waited a little longer.
Unlikely, since he probably would have lost Congress in 2010 regardless of what else happened. Either the right wing was going to accuse him of being a radical socialist, or they (and everyone else) were going to blame him for not doing more to improve the economy.
Probably a Republican president would have been better for passing this; in fact, if Romney had become president, we probably would have gotten reasonable health care reform, because he could have passed something better and more consistent with bipartisan support.
It's a nice fantasy, except both Romney and the Republicans have moved so far to the right that anything they passed was likely to be even more favorable to the insurance companies and even less effective at bringing insurance to the people who don't have it. What exactly is their plan to reduce costs? Malpractice tort reform? Screwing over the trial lawyers, while it might be a worthy goal on general principle, would barely put a dent in the price of insurance. And people with pre-existing conditions are simply fucked.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
He "rammed it through" after it was obvious to anyone paying attention that republicans wouldn't allow healthcare reform until it was a republican president doing it.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Boehner screamed 'shut it down'
Cruz screamed 'shut it down'.
Cantor screamed 'shut it down'.
All tea baggers screamed 'shut it down'.
Most neo-cons screamed 'shut it down'.
The few remaining real republicans said, lets compromise and create a deal.
But it is Obama's fault.
Just amazing.
Re: (Score:2)
The Republicans like to point to this. But the way a budget into the Senate is for it to be a House Budget not a House Republican conference budget. That means it passes with wide bipartisan support not narrow partisan support. Which means negotiating with the committee co-chairs and Nancy Pelosi.
If that were happening I'd be onboard blaming Harry Reid. Otherwise it is just Republicans wondering why Democrats won't pass the Republican budget. Why would they?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This topic has been beaten to death everywhere. The only place where the Republicans look innocent is Fox news.
There was no agreement to be reached except that the dopes in DC should do their jobs. Finally, the children realized they were starting to look bad and did something about it.
Re:Ta Da (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing is, the majority of all the representatives in both houses of Congress were able to reach agreement once the requirement was dropped that the agreement had to have the support of a majority of the Republicans. This is where the system broke down -- a minority of all the representatives could force a shutdown over the wishes of the majority because the (not defined anywhere in the Constitution) 'rules' of the House allowed a smaller group to enforce their wishes on the majority. Why did they do this? Because the pro-shutdown group could not win enough elections across the country to set policy the way they wanted it, so instead they thought shutdown and default were legitimate tactics. That is all on the Republicans. As the President stated afterward -- if you want to legitimately set policy, go out and win some elections!
Re: (Score:2)
That's like saying "the laws aren't defined in the Constitution." It's a red herring. The rules (no need to put that word in quotes, acting as if they're illegitimate) are in full accord with the Constitution: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings..." Article 1, Section 5.
Re:Ta Da (Score:4, Informative)
The rules were recently changed [huffingtonpost.com] so as to thwart bipartisan sensibility in the house.
Though at least 28 House Republicans have publicly said they would support a clean CR if it were brought to the floor -- enough votes for the government to reopen when combined with Democratic support -- a House rule passed just before the shutdown essentially prevents that vote from taking place. ...
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), presiding over the chamber, told Van Hollen that the rule he was asking to use had been "altered" and he did not have the privilege of bringing that vote to the floor. In the ensuing back and forth, Chaffetz said the recently passed House Resolution 368 trumped the standing rules. Where any member of the House previously could have brought the clean resolution to the floor under House Rule 22, House Resolution 368 -- passed on the eve of the shutdown -- gave that right exclusively to the House majority leader, Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless some perceive a value to be gained by it? Troubling conclusions based on others past actions.
Re:Ta Da (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Mr. Spigot? [youtube.com]
I've nothing against your right leg... unfortunately, neither have you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Similar experience here. It was not like the sequestration snuck up on everybody. Any program that was caught off gaurd by this was being severely mismanaged. In fact, I would say that the sequestration was a very good thing. It forced our organization to look at ways of improving operations. Our organization cut most travel and conferences. At the end of the year, not only had our division covered the budget cuts, but they actually ended up with an enormous surplus.
Re: (Score:3)
Austerity will not have the effect you think it will. [businessspectator.com.au]