Patterico's Pontifications


If It’s Not a Shutdown, Stop Calling It One

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 5:34 pm

As of right now, I refuse to call it a shutdown.

The government is not shutting own. Not even remotely.

As I noted this morning, after the supposed government “shutdown,” the mail will get delivered. Social Security and Medicare will continue. Soldiers will defend our country. The USDA will inspect meat. Air traffic controllers will keep our skies safe.

On what planet is that a shutdown?

Propose your own language in the comments. Until I hear something better, I am calling it a “government slowdown” — with a link to this post.

58 Responses to “If It’s Not a Shutdown, Stop Calling It One”

  1. Ding.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  2. I call it a speed up.

    SPQR (768505)

  3. “STOP !!!”

    —William F. Buckley

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  4. How about the Administration’s Tantrum?

    ropelight (8b235a)

  5. Too little, too late?

    nk (dbc370)

  6. When I feed my elbow to some Occupy Wall Street type, can I call it a WIC benefit?

    Steve57 (52f0df)

  7. The troops will get ious instead of paychecks. Shutdown, it what you will but people will get impacted.

    vor2 (c9733f)

  8. I don’t believe that is accurate. Both houses of Congress, as I understand it, have passed bills (which Obama will no doubt sign) to pay the troops.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  9. Shutdown, it what you will but people will get impacted.

    I did not say nobody would be affected so congratulations on demolishing the argument I never made.

    Some people may be affected but not as many as would be affected if the government were actually to shut down, as the term shutdown implies.

    I just ask for accuracy in characterization.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  10. If the action goes more than a few days it causes a delay in pay because the dfas servers have to be brought back up.

    vor2 (c9733f)

  11. There are 3.8 million people working for the federal government. Each and everyone chose to do so.

    Since the U.S. Senate decided years ago not to act on federal budgets, we are left with CRs to fund the government.

    Everyone in the U.S. is still free to choose their employer and face the consequences of their decision.

    Companies lay off people and go bankrupt.

    Working for the federal government does not guarantee a steady paycheck no more than working for ACME Anvil.

    Ag80 (eb6ffa)

  12. If it’s not “think of the children”, it’s “think of the soldiers”. Yup, I believe it. Totally sincere concern and not the least bit manipulative.

    nk (dbc370)

  13. Where do “back alley abortions because federal women employees will not be able to afford contraception” fall on the hierarchy of sacred chimeras?

    nk (dbc370)

  14. All the House bill did is postpone that requirement for one year, till January 1, 2015, not abolish it. (but if everything is postponed one year, won’t it be postponed anyway?)

    Sammy Finkelman (c8f489)

  15. Work with them five days a week NK. What exactly is being manipulated? Oh yeah you are the mind reader.

    vor2 (c9733f)

  16. Vor2 – have you missed where the military has already been taken care of today?

    JD (b4bff3)

  17. I love being a in the Army. Deployed to Afghanistan. Dealing with this shithole of a country and getting shot at.

    For no pay due.

    Oh. And my wife back home has to pay the bills and take care of the homestead.

    Thanks Democrats, you f***ing t**ts.

    Nevyan (2bac13)

  18. JD,
    Missed you as well. See the article above (not a rick moran op-ed ;)) if you are interested. Go more than a few days in shut/slow mode and the DFAS servers have to be restarted/programmed. That could cause a delay in payout.

    vor2 (c9733f)

  19. JD, had not seen that the bill passed today. Delays in payout are still a possibility.

    vor2 (c9733f)

  20. Then Hairy Reed ought to quit rejecting everything.

    JD (b4bff3)

  21. Reid has benefited the most in terms of staying under the radar. Obama and the House GOP are getting all the press while Reid gums up the works and barely gets ink.

    vor2 (c9733f)

  22. Comment by vor2 (c9733f) — 9/30/2013 @ 6:56 pm

    Delays in payout are still a possibility.

    Only if they don’t raise the debt ceiling, but that’s still at least two and half weeks away.

    Is that sarcasm? I don’t know.

    Sammy Finkelman (8423d6)

  23. Maybe we should call it “Deficit Reduction Stimulus.”

    JVW (93c84b)

  24. 800,000 employees are being furloughed. Seems pretty shutdown-y to me. Your mileage may vary.

    Tlaloc (d061fc)

  25. Maybe we should call it “Deficit Reduction Stimulus.”

    Problem is shutdown cost more than running as normal, no less. The price tag for Newt’s 1995 tantrum was an extra billion dollars sent.

    Tlaloc (d061fc)

  26. This particular (partial) shitdown isn’t about saving money. It’s about using any leverage they have to stop Obamacare on pain of being accused of betraying principle or not being serious about opposing Obamacare..

    There are some pretty good comments to this article

    Sammy Finkelman (66a8bd)

  27. Problem is shutdown cost more than running as normal, no less.

    Because in the end we all play nice and pay back the wages of the furloughed workers. But what if we didn’t do it this time around? All those folks at the NEA and at the IRS and at the Smithsonian or wherever would just have to take the financial hit. Maybe then we could quit turning this into kabuki theater and maybe Democrats would have some incentive to cut a deal, lest their public employee supporters lose heart.

    JVW (93c84b)

  28. It’s not just paying back wages, it’s also because the process of shutting down and then restarting is very inefficient and wasteful. It also causes big delays in ongoing plans and processes causing yet more waste. There’s no part of this that makes sense for supposed economic conservatives.

    Tlaloc (d061fc)

  29. “an attempt to exert outsize control through extortion”

    “If the Democrats acted the same way – we would be seeking tax hikes etc”

    “The conversation should not be about compromise or who is at fault. It should be about the legitimacy of using the budget to gain concessions on unrelated pet bills.

    What the Republicans are after is the ultimate earmark….”

    “Control of one house of Congress is not enough to repeal a law, but it can create a lot of political drama.” (He proposes a procedural compromise: hearings on changes in the law next year, and everybody gets to vote all bills: no filibuster in the Senate and no Hastert Rule in the House, and a commitment to a conference committee. That wouldn’t work as a formal matter, but it could be informally agreed and enforced by holding the next must pass bill hostage)

    “They are both playing a game of “chicken”, …but, unlike the real game…the people pay the price.”

    Sammy Finkelman (66a8bd)

  30. We don’t sweat the small stuff, Tatloc.

    nk (dbc370)

  31. Mark would like this comment: (you’ve got a progressive not liking the way Obama is performing.)

    “….we on the progressive-liberal side of the equation can safely blame the Republicans…But I must say, I remain utterly underwhelmed by Barack Obama with regard to his glaring inability to inform the American public about his Affordable Care Act over these past many years since the bill was proposed, passed and validated by the courts…..the majority of the public holds either a negative or ambivalent view about “Obamacare” so that the bill has few true champions. The outrage we should all be feeling about the Republican obstructionism now taking place on Capitol HIll would (and should) be magnified a thousand-fold were there any sort of widespread understanding of the merits of ACA.

    In my estimation, Obama is already a lame duck–a mere eight months into his second term….The only thing he will likely be able to accomplish…will be a smattering of judicial appointments..”

    Sammy Finkelman (66a8bd)

  32. Tlaloc, what did Tip O’Neal twelve tantrums cost?

    SPQR (768505)

  33. If the action goes more than a few days it causes a delay in pay because the dfas servers have to be brought back up.

    Comment by vor2 (c9733f) — 9/30/2013 @ 6:25 pm

    Citation please?

    I like government slowdown over government shutdown.

    Tanny O'Haley (ffc3bf)

  34. We don’t sweat the small stuff, Tatloc.

    As they say, a billion here, a billion there and pretty soon you’re talking about real money.

    Tlaloc, what did Tip O’Neal twelve tantrums cost?

    No idea. I take it this means you’ve conceded I’m right and have now retreated to “well Dems do it too!”

    Tlaloc (d061fc)

  35. oh crap i forgot about the dfas servers

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  36. No, actually Tlaloc, I have shown how vapid your arguments are. Democrats actually did shutdown government over tantrums. Republicans in battles to reduce spending.

    SPQR (768505)

  37. Oh, SPQR. Bless your little heart, you try so hard.

    Tlaloc (d061fc)

  38. SPQR # 31 – per Tlaloc’s identical twin clone, “What difference at this point does it make? ” …

    Alastor (2e7f9f)

  39. Tlaloc, lol. You don’t have the gravitas to pull that line off, troll.

    SPQR (768505)

  40. It’s not just paying back wages, it’s also because the process of shutting down and then restarting is very inefficient and wasteful.

    Well, this data is two years old, but according to it the monthly Federal payroll is a bit over $16 billion. If we were to shut down government for a week, could we save at least $1 billion in payroll costs? I mean, when you factor in the idea that the military will still be paid, and the — ahem, ahem — essential government employees will still be paid, isn’t it still reasonable that we can save a mere 25% of the usual costs? If so, and if we have the sand to not back-fill those wages when this kerfuffle gets settled, I think we could maybe even come out ahead in the deal. Though it’s clear that Democrats and their buddies in the bureaucracy will go to the ends of the earth to try to invent phony “costs” that they can associate with any slowdown in order to give the impression that the country suffers greatly whenever the massive federal bureaucracy is not fully functioning.

    JVW (93c84b)

  41. And it’s funny to hear our friends on the left fret about the “costs” of the slowdown when you consider the ridiculous deficits that Obama has brought us during his woeful term in the Oval Office.

    $1 billion in “costs” represents about .083% of the average Obama budget deficit, so $10 billion in costs would represent .83% of the average Obama budget deficit. But it’s great to know that liberals want to pinch pennies (or, more accurately, tiny fractions of a cent) here while throwing money hither and yon elsewhere.

    JVW (93c84b)

  42. if you compare the cost of obamacare to the cost of a tasty punkin spice latte it will become immediately clear to you that the punkin spice latte has a clear cost advantage

    but nobody’s asking *why*

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  43. JVW, Obama is spending billions on bankrupt “green energy” cronies. Maybe we will be luckey and the shutdown will slow down the corruption of Obama administration.

    SPQR (768505)

  44. ok c’mon happyfeet get it together

    at least try not to cry like a little girl

    ok well try harder then cupcake

    damn you’re just hopeless here’s a tissue

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  45. Dimwit’s “it costs more money to not operate the government than it does to operate it,” argument is very persuasive.

    Icy (5ef62d)

  46. I think the argument it costs more is that federal workers could be paid double – for the time they missed, and then because they are needed and maybe overtime.

    Sammy Finkelman (66a8bd)

  47. Fire everyone and start over with illegals.

    oops, that could be what’s going down.

    mg (31009b)

  48. Tlalalala’s faux concern over costs is touching. Maybe we would not have to experience said costs if Dems didn’t stomp their feet and act like 7 year olds. Your Dems made this happen on purpose, and you cheer them on.

    JD (5c1832)

  49. On Capitol Hill it’s actually called a SPENDING GAP, not a shutdown, meaning they’re spending a little less than they normally do, but the revenues don’t stop, Lordy no….our taxes are flooding into DC at an ever increasing volume.

    patechinois (92c4b7)

  50. The cost of shut down and start up is diluted if you stay down for a long time. Do Back Pay. Stay down till Christmas. Get more for your slow down bucks.

    Stanmo (36ed63)

  51. No Back Pay.

    Stanmo (36ed63)

  52. A good start?

    Iblis (b93cb5)

  53. Since a large number of the government workers staying at home didn’t really do much when they were at work anyway, and since they will end up being paid for their time off once all the dust settles, should we just call this Bureacratic telecommuting?

    humanterms (ad6edc)

  54. Shutdown?

    If you are in the union, something like this is called a ‘job action’, or a ‘sick in’, or from the other side, ‘lock out’.

    I’ve never seen an employer do a ‘partial lock out’, and I’ve never seen either a union or a company do something like this; holding their customers hostage to their demands.

    Lucky Eddie (c86498)

  55. If the MFM were not in hysterics over this UPRECEDENTED “shut down”, maybe the public would learn about what it is that the government does on a day-to-day basis, and how bloated and invasive it has become. As is, it will be portrayed much like the evil sequester reduction in the projected rate of growth, which was also UNPRECEDENTED, and implemented in such a way to inconvenience the most citizens possible.

    JD (5c1832)

  56. JD

    the scary part is that govt employment is reaching about a third or more of the workforce

    maybe they should stop collecting taxes and see where the public support goes, after all we pay taxes for a govt, if the govt is gone, whya re we still paying?

    EPWJ (1cedce)

  57. Luckey Eddie, the shutdown is about Obama punishing American people like a petulant 13 yr old girl. Why else barricade an outdoor memorial like the WWII memorial?

    SPQR (620579)

  58. I’ve never seen an employer do a ‘partial lock out’, and I’ve never seen either a union or a company do something like this; holding their customers hostage to their demands.

    Comment by Lucky Eddie (c86498) — 10/1/2013 @ 10:56 am

    You must have missed the Time warner – CBS kerfuffle.

    felipe (70ff7e)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1908 secs.