I guess we'll just have to get along without them, somehow or other.
Hägar the Horrible had a cartoon, years ago, where the little tax-man in his executioner's hood walked into the pub to announce to the assembled Vikings that the government was shutting down. When they throw up a cheer, he exclaims, "You're not supposed to be happy!"
Maybe not, but you'll excuse me if I don't mind particularly. I'm pretty sure we could do without most of what they do even if nobody else ever picked it up -- which somebody would, if it was something they missed. Aside from the military and a few other basic functions I think we could do without them. If I were Congress, I wouldn't get too cocky about us mourning for them and begging them back.
I think the Democrats are going to find out shutdown theatre has a very different plot when they can't stage-manage it for maximum impact.
ReplyDeleteI know nearly everyone will fall for the "Republicans shut down government" line, but I'm curious to see whether it will play differently this time, without the shutdown theater to convince people that something they actually care about has shut down. Who are they going to believe, the press or their lying eyes?
ReplyDeleteThey lost me on this one under Newt Gingrich. I'm just waiting to see how others take it from decade to decade.
I do not wish to interrupt them when they are shooting at their feet. Well, except to recommend a larger calibre and that they aim higher.
ReplyDeleteAn excerpt rudely cross-posted from my blog:
ReplyDeleteFrankly, I hope Trump stands firm, and with the government shut down that it stays shut down for far more than a couple of weeks—let everyone see how little Big Government is needed and how well a skeleton government (at least compared to the present morbidly obese government) functions. After all, to take one example from that 2013 shutdown, then-EPA Secretary Gina McCarthy admitted that more than 90% of her EPA personnel were non-essential, and she furloughed them for the duration. Now, 90% probably overstates the long-term case (assuming we actually need an EPA, but that’s a separate discussion), but the EPA’s current budget request, which reflects a 47% reduction in EPA employees, is a good place to start.
Eric Hines
My question is: how long will it take for most people to notice? The Post Office is still running, and Medicare And Social Security checks will still go out, many National Parks and Monuments are still open.
ReplyDeleteLittleRed1
My hope is that you're right, Mr. Hines. I'd love to see a re-evaluation of just how many 'non-essential' personnel we should really have working for us at all. Maybe the shut-down state of the government is a lot closer to the government we'd need -- if indeed we need even that much.
ReplyDeleteWho cares?
ReplyDeleteShut it down...
Either your a taker or a maker.....
Save money.
Take Less
_Mississippi
With the president's comments about a present from the Democrats, I strongly suspect that Mr. Hines and our host are on to something. "You wanted a shutdown? See how well the government functioned with minimal funding--that means my budget cuts are exactly what the country needs." I have a hunch that this is a case of the Democrats playing checkers to the president's chess.
ReplyDeleteMaybe the shut-down state of the government is a lot closer to the government we'd need -- if indeed we need even that much.
ReplyDeleteThere is the 10th Amendment. It may be that what we need is better enforcement/restoration of that to its original place. Maybe we need to get the Federal government to focus more/more exclusively on external affairs and leave more/most of the domestic matters to the States, as the 10th Amendment in conjunction with the body of the Constitution envisioned.
On the other hand, today's world is much more intertwined--and in some senses much more dangerously so--with much more rapid interactions than was the case in the late 18th century when we ratified it. Maybe we can't afford so much differing approaches to domestic questions, when they impact so much our foreign affairs. Maybe we need more direction from the center.
But how far do we let that increase in centralized direction proceed? I suggest we've let it go too far, but what's the limiting principle that I'm always on about? What's the line--or at least the narrower grey area--that says this far is OK, but that far is too far?
Until that gets sorted out, probably the answer is the 10th Amendment as informed by the outcomes of a prolonged central government shutdown.
In any case, it's clear to me that we have too many folks on the Federal government payroll. Just for concreteness' sake, I'd start with a 20% cut across the board of the civilian work force, and then begin deep targeted cuts from there.
Eric Hines
Oh, and break the power of incumbency in the Federal governments with the term quasi-limits Constitutional Amendment that I've proposed before, which takes the Articles of Confederation's limits on terms as its core. I'd recommend this to each of the States, too, but that's each State's citizens' choice.
ReplyDeleteEric Hines