Gubment shut down (1 Viewer)

[Jackstraw]

Plenty of other places to argue the ins and outs of the budget battle. I'm wondering what is really gonna happen if the government shuts down. Will social security checks stop coming? Will the mail be delivered? What really happens. I wasn't really plugged in during the last shutdown.

I really have no idea.

 

[Jackstraw]

This is what teh google says are immediate consequences

1. Workers will be furloughed without pay.

The first shutdown in 1995, which lasted five days, affected 800,000 non-essential federal employees. The second shutdown, which lasted three weeks, furloughed 260,000 employees without pay. (Most eventually collected paychecks.)

2. National parks and museums will close.

In 1995-96, 368 National Park Service sites closed, as well as national museums and monuments. That meant losses of over 2 million visitors and associated tourism revenue to states.

3. Veterans' services will be affected.

Health, travel, finance and welfare services for U.S. veterans will be curbed.

4. Visa and passport processing will be delayed.

The U.S. tourism and airline industries reportedly lost millions of dollars after the 1995-96 shutdowns halted visa and passport processing. Approximately 200,000 U.S. passport applications went unprocessed during the shutdowns and 20,000 to 30,000 foreign visa applications were unprocessed.

5. Border patrol and law enforcement will be curtailed.

The last shutdown had a number of consequences for law enforcement and public safety operations, including reported cancellation of hiring 400 border patrol agents and cancellation of federal law enforcement recruiting programs. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms also saw delays in processing license applications.

 

[TobiasFunke]

This is what teh google says are immediate consequences

1. Workers will be furloughed without pay.

The first shutdown in 1995, which lasted five days, affected 800,000 non-essential federal employees. The second shutdown, which lasted three weeks, furloughed 260,000 employees without pay. (Most eventually collected paychecks.)

2. National parks and museums will close.

In 1995-96, 368 National Park Service sites closed, as well as national museums and monuments. That meant losses of over 2 million visitors and associated tourism revenue to states.

3. Veterans' services will be affected.

Health, travel, finance and welfare services for U.S. veterans will be curbed.

4. Visa and passport processing will be delayed.

The U.S. tourism and airline industries reportedly lost millions of dollars after the 1995-96 shutdowns halted visa and passport processing. Approximately 200,000 U.S. passport applications went unprocessed during the shutdowns and 20,000 to 30,000 foreign visa applications were unprocessed.

5. Border patrol and law enforcement will be curtailed.

The last shutdown had a number of consequences for law enforcement and public safety operations, including reported cancellation of hiring 400 border patrol agents and cancellation of federal law enforcement recruiting programs. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms also saw delays in processing license applications.

I would add the possibility of delayed tax refunds (along with no tax return help line services) to that list.The more important consequences are indirect but much more catastrophic. If it continues beyond a couple days it could do some serious damage to the economic recovery just as it's getting off the ground. Here's an explanation of why.

 

[Tiny Dancer]

I suspect posting in the FFA will be reduced by 50%.

 

[CrossEyed]

This is what teh google says are immediate consequences

1. Workers will be furloughed without pay.

The first shutdown in 1995, which lasted five days, affected 800,000 non-essential federal employees. The second shutdown, which lasted three weeks, furloughed 260,000 employees without pay. (Most eventually collected paychecks.)

2. National parks and museums will close.

In 1995-96, 368 National Park Service sites closed, as well as national museums and monuments. That meant losses of over 2 million visitors and associated tourism revenue to states.

3. Veterans' services will be affected.

Health, travel, finance and welfare services for U.S. veterans will be curbed.

4. Visa and passport processing will be delayed.

The U.S. tourism and airline industries reportedly lost millions of dollars after the 1995-96 shutdowns halted visa and passport processing. Approximately 200,000 U.S. passport applications went unprocessed during the shutdowns and 20,000 to 30,000 foreign visa applications were unprocessed.

5. Border patrol and law enforcement will be curtailed.

The last shutdown had a number of consequences for law enforcement and public safety operations, including reported cancellation of hiring 400 border patrol agents and cancellation of federal law enforcement recruiting programs. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms also saw delays in processing license applications.

I would add the possibility of delayed tax refunds (along with no tax return help line services) to that list.The more important consequences are indirect but much more catastrophic. If it continues beyond a couple days it could do some serious damage to the economic recovery just as it's getting off the ground. Here's an explanation of why.

Of course. The year that I get a $13K credit for our adoption and I'll probably have to wait 6 months for it.

 

[rascal]

I suspect posting in the FFA will be reduced by 50%.

lol

 

[Rayderr]

CNN has an article about this today.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- If Congress fails to approve a spending bill by Friday, the federal government will shut down. And boy, things aren't looking good.

Lawmakers have been trying to reach a compromise that would set spending levels for the next six months. Those negotiations continued Tuesday at the White House, and it appears things did not go well.

After the meeting, House Speaker John Boehner accused the White House of proposing cuts that amount to "smoke and mirrors."

And President Obama made a rare appearance at the White House press briefing, where he berated Republicans for including hot-button political initiatives in their proposal.

It appears the two sides are still billion of dollars away from striking a deal. With time running out, a shutdown is looking ever more likely.

If it comes to that, agencies won't be able to spend money, and parts of the federal government will close up shop.

Which services would stop?

During the last major shutdowns in the final days of 1995 and early 1996, the government closed 368 National Park Service sites, along with national museums and monuments.

In addition, 200,000 passport applications went unprocessed and toxic waste cleanup work at 609 sites stopped. The National Institutes of Health stopped accepting new clinical research patients and services for veterans, including health care, were curtailed.

Work on bankruptcy cases could slow. In the last shutdown, more than 3,500 cases were delayed.

Which services would the government keep running?

Agencies are allowed to perform any operations necessary for the safety of human life and protection of property.

The government would keep essential services -- such as air traffic control and the national security apparatus -- in full operating mode.

Federal workers who provide medical care on the job would be kept on, as would employees who handle hazardous waste, inspect food, patrol the borders, protect federal property, guard inmates or work in power distribution.

Workers who protect essential elements of the money and banking system would also report to work.

The Postal Service, which is self-funded, will continue to operate.

How many federal workers would be furloughed?

The government went dark twice during the Clinton administration: Some 800,000 workers were sent home during the first shutdown and 284,000 were sent home during the later shutdown.

Workers in shutdown limbo

It is unclear how many workers would be furloughed in a new shutdown. Each federal agency has its own plan to wind down operations, and administration officials have not released details.

Will Social Security benefits be mailed?

During the last major shutdown, the Social Security Administration mailed checks throughout the crisis, and a close reading of established law makes clear the agency has the legal authority to do so again.

During the Clinton-era shutdown, new Social Security claims weren't being processed because the agency furloughed 61,415 employees. As the shutdown wore on, the agency adjusted its plan and recalled workers to start processing new claims.

Will troops overseas get the resources they need?

Yes. While some Pentagon activities would stop, it would continue many other operations necessary for the safety of human life and protection of property.

However, the Department of Defense says that if the government shuts down for an extended period, troops might not be paid on time.

How long will a shutdown last?

Hard to say. Between 1977 and 1980, there were six shutdowns ranging from eight to 17 days.

Nine shutdowns occurred between 1980 and 1995, and none lasted longer than three full days.

The Clinton-era shutdowns lasted five days and 21 days. Since that episode the federal government has suffered no similar shutdown.

Most political strategists agree that the Clinton-era shutdowns politically benefited the sitting president, who was able to paint Republicans as obstructionist.

If a shutdown does come to fruition, the current crop of Republicans will be looking to avoid the same fate.

How did we get here?

Typically, lawmakers pass 12 appropriations bills for the president's approval. Those bills give federal agencies the legal authority to spend and conduct business.

This year, not one of the 12 has been approved by the Senate.

Instead, lawmakers have relied on continuing resolutions. If lawmakers are able to pass another short-term fix, it would be the fifth of the fiscal year.

 

[TobiasFunke]

The Post has a good breakdown also.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Active Duty military will be paid only 50% of their pay during the furlough. All those in training or school status will be pulled, costing millions of dollars. Contracts will be terminated or put on hold, costing tens of millions of dollars. Small business loans, federal grants and subsides and a lot more will be put on hold costing time and money.

Tax returns and processing also would be stopped and federally backed mortgages would be put on furlough as well. Shutting down the government will cost the taxpayer also, how much we won't know for weeks.

 

[glumpy]

CNN has an article about this today.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) --How many federal workers would be furloughed?

The government went dark twice during the Clinton administration: Some 800,000 workers were sent home during the first shutdown and 284,000 were sent home during the later shutdown.

Weren't they all then paid for the time?

 

[Rayderr]

CNN has an article about this today.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) --How many federal workers would be furloughed?

The government went dark twice during the Clinton administration: Some 800,000 workers were sent home during the first shutdown and 284,000 were sent home during the later shutdown.

Weren't they all then paid for the time?

I didn't poll every single worker, but all the ones I knew (including some contractors) were.

 

[Jackstraw]

"Well, I don’t know if we’re checkmating. But we’re trying — we’re trying to score a victory for the Republican people, for — for the American — for the Republican people — trying to score a victory for the American people, not for the Republican Party," - Mike Pence, on a possible government shutdown.

 

[Bamboo Bill]

:confetti:

 

[Don Quixote]

CNN has an article about this today.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) --How many federal workers would be furloughed?

The government went dark twice during the Clinton administration: Some 800,000 workers were sent home during the first shutdown and 284,000 were sent home during the later shutdown.

Weren't they all then paid for the time?

They were then. Although a lot of people are commenting that they may not be as likely to get back-pay this time around.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

CNN has an article about this today.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) --How many federal workers would be furloughed?

The government went dark twice during the Clinton administration: Some 800,000 workers were sent home during the first shutdown and 284,000 were sent home during the later shutdown.

Weren't they all then paid for the time?

They were then. Although a lot of people are commenting that they may not be as likely to get back-pay this time around.

Been hearing the same things. That this may be a furlough that actually bites. Lucky that I work for the VA and it is fully funded to the end of the fiscal year.

 

[Don Quixote]

CNN has an article about this today.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) --How many federal workers would be furloughed?

The government went dark twice during the Clinton administration: Some 800,000 workers were sent home during the first shutdown and 284,000 were sent home during the later shutdown.

Weren't they all then paid for the time?

They were then. Although a lot of people are commenting that they may not be as likely to get back-pay this time around.

Been hearing the same things. That this may be a furlough that actually bites. Lucky that I work for the VA and it is fully funded to the end of the fiscal year.

My wife is federal and non-essential, and will be furlougheed. She'd be flipping out right now if she was still single. But, as it is, I think she is looking forward to a "vacation." And I'm looking forward to having dinner ready when I get home, and the laundry and dishes being done too.

 

[Tau837]

CNN has an article about this today.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) --How many federal workers would be furloughed?

The government went dark twice during the Clinton administration: Some 800,000 workers were sent home during the first shutdown and 284,000 were sent home during the later shutdown.

Weren't they all then paid for the time?

They were then. Although a lot of people are commenting that they may not be as likely to get back-pay this time around.

This is one of the dumbest things that could ever happen. Send home a bunch of government workers for some period of time and preclude them from working. Then bring them back and pay them for that time.If they are going to ultimately be paid for the time, keep them at work and just pay them when the shutdown ends! If the government cannot incur an obligation during a shutdown, send them home and don't pay them. To pay them for no work is the worst possible outcome. So naturally that's what our government will do.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

CNN has an article about this today.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) --How many federal workers would be furloughed?

The government went dark twice during the Clinton administration: Some 800,000 workers were sent home during the first shutdown and 284,000 were sent home during the later shutdown.

Weren't they all then paid for the time?

They were then. Although a lot of people are commenting that they may not be as likely to get back-pay this time around.

This is one of the dumbest things that could ever happen. Send home a bunch of government workers for some period of time and preclude them from working. Then bring them back and pay them for that time.If they are going to ultimately be paid for the time, keep them at work and just pay them when the shutdown ends! If the government cannot incur an obligation during a shutdown, send them home and don't pay them. To pay them for no work is the worst possible outcome. So naturally that's what our government will do.

Questions:Why hold hostage the Gov't employees that are just going about their usual business, who have nothing to do with the bitter Repub/Dem political war? Why make it about them suffering without thier regular check.

And if they do this, how hypocritical that the President and senate are not affected?

Shouldn't the President and Senators do like Roger Goodell and reduce their wage to $1 till this is resolved?

Why make lightning rods of typical, normal, mostly underpaid (compared to the going rate in the private sector) employees? Why must they pay for the politcal battles of hypocrite politicians?

 

[Bamboo Bill]

Can someone tell me specifically how trimming this portion of our government budget is going to directly create more jobs (as the repubs keep repeating)? Please help me connect the dots.

TIA

 

[dgreen]

And I'm looking forward to having dinner ready when I get home, and the laundry and dishes being done too.

Good luck with that.

 

[TobiasFunke]

CNN has an article about this today.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) --How many federal workers would be furloughed?

The government went dark twice during the Clinton administration: Some 800,000 workers were sent home during the first shutdown and 284,000 were sent home during the later shutdown.

Weren't they all then paid for the time?

They were then. Although a lot of people are commenting that they may not be as likely to get back-pay this time around.

This is one of the dumbest things that could ever happen. Send home a bunch of government workers for some period of time and preclude them from working. Then bring them back and pay them for that time.If they are going to ultimately be paid for the time, keep them at work and just pay them when the shutdown ends! If the government cannot incur an obligation during a shutdown, send them home and don't pay them. To pay them for no work is the worst possible outcome. So naturally that's what our government will do.

I see what you're saying, but the payment to federal employees for missed time would likely me so small as compared to the deficit as to be essentially zero. In the meantime, you have maybe a million people, many of them single income families, who will all of a sudden become zero income families. We're talking about missed mortgage and other debt payments for probably thousands, and potentially significant economic damage for the D.C. metropolitan area- it's basically like all of Detroit shutting down auto production at the same time with very little warning. I know the counter-argument is "welcome to the real world," and I understand that (although I think that many federal employees consider income security part of their compensation package that led them to choose the job they did). I'm just explaining why maybe if they do get paid eventually it wouldn't be "the worst possible outcome."

 

[dgreen]

CNN has an article about this today.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) --How many federal workers would be furloughed?

The government went dark twice during the Clinton administration: Some 800,000 workers were sent home during the first shutdown and 284,000 were sent home during the later shutdown.

Weren't they all then paid for the time?

They were then. Although a lot of people are commenting that they may not be as likely to get back-pay this time around.

This is one of the dumbest things that could ever happen. Send home a bunch of government workers for some period of time and preclude them from working. Then bring them back and pay them for that time.If they are going to ultimately be paid for the time, keep them at work and just pay them when the shutdown ends! If the government cannot incur an obligation during a shutdown, send them home and don't pay them. To pay them for no work is the worst possible outcome. So naturally that's what our government will do.

I see what you're saying, but the payment to federal employees for missed time would likely me so small as compared to the deficit as to be essentially zero. In the meantime, you have maybe a million people, many of them single income families, who will all of a sudden become zero income families. We're talking about missed mortgage and other debt payments for probably thousands, and potentially significant economic damage for the D.C. metropolitan area- it's basically like all of Detroit shutting down auto production at the same time with very little warning. I know the counter-argument is "welcome to the real world," and I understand that (although I think that many federal employees consider income security part of their compensation package that led them to choose the job they did). I'm just explaining why maybe if they do get paid eventually it wouldn't be "the worst possible outcome."

Plus, I'll be producing almost as much during the shutdown and I would if I was in the office.Seriously.

 

[Don Quixote]

And I'm looking forward to having dinner ready when I get home, and the laundry and dishes being done too.

Good luck with that.

...And maybe she will become so tired of watching female-targeted TV programming during the day, that I will be able to flip on the Nats game without a complaint (now I'm clearly dreaming).

 

[dgreen]

And I'm looking forward to having dinner ready when I get home, and the laundry and dishes being done too.

Good luck with that.

...And maybe she will become so tired of watching female-targeted TV programming during the day, that I will be able to flip on the Nats game without a complaint (now I'm clearly dreaming).

And she'll want to have lots of secks.

 

[bushdocda]

I didn't read any of the articles but could this be a drastic and shady way to save $. How much will they not spend per day if they are 'shut down'?

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Honestly this is what European governments do. Congress is completely broken, how embarrassing.

 

[Phil Elliott]

The Post has a good breakdown also.

Top of my list:Will the Cherry Blossom Parade still go on?

At this point, it is unclear. Organizers of Saturday’s National Cherry Blossom Festival Parade along Constitution Avenue — which is land controlled by the National Park Service — are scrambling to come up with a contingency plan. A federal budget official said Wednesday that a government shutdown would force cancellation of the parade. Thirteen marching bands from around the country are scheduled to perform in the annual parade.

 

[Don Quixote]

The Post has a good breakdown also.

Top of my list:Will the Cherry Blossom Parade still go on?

At this point, it is unclear. Organizers of Saturday’s National Cherry Blossom Festival Parade along Constitution Avenue — which is land controlled by the National Park Service — are scrambling to come up with a contingency plan. A federal budget official said Wednesday that a government shutdown would force cancellation of the parade. Thirteen marching bands from around the country are scheduled to perform in the annual parade.

You don't understand. Brick from "The Middle" is the grand marshal. Brick!

 

[Scarpaggio]

If there is a shutdown I have to go to work Monday to turn in any cell phone, laptop, blackberry. Once the equipment is accounted for I can return home. Problem is I don't have any of these items but I still have to show up so they can say ok now go home.

They will also be monitoring all government systems to make sure we do not access them, even our e-mail by the web and anyone who does could be prosecuted, according to the e-mail we got today.

 

[dgreen]

If there is a shutdown I have to go to work Monday to turn in any cell phone, laptop, blackberry. Once the equipment is accounted for I can return home. Problem is I don't have any of these items but I still have to show up so they can say ok now go home. They will also be monitoring all government systems to make sure we do not access them, even our e-mail by the web and anyone who does could be prosecuted, according to the e-mail we got today.

Yep. I have to go in Monday and sign some papers and then leave. I don't work Mondays, so that's pretty annoying. Maybe the papers will be ready tomorrow and I can sign then.I guess we're also supposed to change our vmail greeting and set up an out of office message in email.

 

[Tau837]

CNN has an article about this today.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) --How many federal workers would be furloughed?

The government went dark twice during the Clinton administration: Some 800,000 workers were sent home during the first shutdown and 284,000 were sent home during the later shutdown.

Weren't they all then paid for the time?

They were then. Although a lot of people are commenting that they may not be as likely to get back-pay this time around.

This is one of the dumbest things that could ever happen. Send home a bunch of government workers for some period of time and preclude them from working. Then bring them back and pay them for that time.If they are going to ultimately be paid for the time, keep them at work and just pay them when the shutdown ends! If the government cannot incur an obligation during a shutdown, send them home and don't pay them. To pay them for no work is the worst possible outcome. So naturally that's what our government will do.

I see what you're saying, but the payment to federal employees for missed time would likely me so small as compared to the deficit as to be essentially zero. In the meantime, you have maybe a million people, many of them single income families, who will all of a sudden become zero income families. We're talking about missed mortgage and other debt payments for probably thousands, and potentially significant economic damage for the D.C. metropolitan area- it's basically like all of Detroit shutting down auto production at the same time with very little warning. I know the counter-argument is "welcome to the real world," and I understand that (although I think that many federal employees consider income security part of their compensation package that led them to choose the job they did). I'm just explaining why maybe if they do get paid eventually it wouldn't be "the worst possible outcome."

Fine... if it is appropriate to ultimately pay them, it is appropriate to have them actually work for their pay. It is not rocket science. Our govt has no business paying its workers for sitting at home unless they are taking leave. The way this is likely to play out is ridiculous.

 

[CBusAlex]

I guess we're also supposed to change our vmail greeting and set up an out of office message in email.

Good schtick potential here.

 

[Jayrod]

If there is a shutdown I have to go to work Monday to turn in any cell phone, laptop, blackberry. Once the equipment is accounted for I can return home. Problem is I don't have any of these items but I still have to show up so they can say ok now go home. They will also be monitoring all government systems to make sure we do not access them, even our e-mail by the web and anyone who does could be prosecuted, according to the e-mail we got today.

Yep. I have to go in Monday and sign some papers and then leave. I don't work Mondays, so that's pretty annoying. Maybe the papers will be ready tomorrow and I can sign then.I guess we're also supposed to change our vmail greeting and set up an out of office message in email.

PANDEMONIUM!!!!

 

[belljr]

Contractor still with no information on what will happen to me

 

[kwille]

The pending federal shutdown and the NFL lockout are great illustrations of how true leadership is dead in this country. As a society, we've completely forgotten how to seek solutions that are in best interest of all. We thrive on conflict and react to complex problems with simple-minded competitive attitudes. It's embarrassing and shameful.

 

[KCC]

If it's anything like 1995 (when another GOP controlled congress under a Democrat in the whitehouse shutdown the government) then the GOP will lose some political capital among the American public:

Americans blame GOP for budget mess

November 15, 1995

Web posted at: 11:10 a.m. EST

While Americans have shifted toward the Republicans in the question of who has the best approach toward dealing with the budget deficit, more blame the GOP than Democrats for the bringing about the partial government shutdown this week, according to a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. The poll sampled the opinions of 652 adult Americans on Tuesday. Sampling error is plus or minus four percentage points.

When it comes to dealing with the tough choices involved in cutting programs to reduce the federal budget deficit while maintaining needed federal programs, poll respondents chose the Democrats over the Republicans, the opposite results from a poll in July.

Best Approach to Budget

Now July

Democrats 49% 43%

Republicans 36% 44%

When asked if they personally view the government shutdown as a crisis, as a major problem, as a minor problem, or not a problem at all, a majority of respondents said it was a major or minor problem.

Government Shutdown

Crisis 11%

Major problem 40%

Minor problem 33%

Not a problem 14%

Overall, Americans blame the Republican leaders in Congress more for the recent shutdown of the federal government, not President Clinton.

Blame for Shutdown

GOP leaders 49%

President Clinton 26%

Both 19%

When asked whether they approve or disapprove of the way President Clinton, Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, and House Speaker Newt Gingrich have handled the budget negotiations in Washington over the past few days, the poll respondents favored the president's behavior more than his opponents in Congress.

Approve Handling of Budget Negotiations

Clinton 48%

Dole 32%

Gingrich 22%

The poll respondents were asked whether they thought the budget debate between Bill Clinton and the Republicans in Congress is an important battle over principles and the future direction of government, or is mostly an attempt by both sides to gain political advantage before the 1996 election. More than half believe politics is behind the budget battle.

Reason for Shutdown

Politics 52%

Principles 37%

Despite claims by Republicans that Americans overwhelmingly support seeking a balanced budget, this latest poll shows more people believe it is more important to protect the Medicare system from major changes.

More Important to...

Protect Medicare 48%

Balance budget 38%

The recent events in Washington still have not turned poll respondents off from the established political parties. Most said they probably would not support an independent candidate for president in 1996.

Vote for Independent in 1996

More likely 36%

Not more likely 52%

Americans apparently are very unhappy about what they've seen in Washington over the past few days. Nearly two-thirds of those asked said they are angry about the budget confrontation between the Clinton administration and Congress.

Budget Confrontation

Angry 61%

Not angry 36%

President Clinton's chances of being re-elected do not appear to have been hurt much by the budget fray. In the last CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll (Nov. 6-8), Clinton was leading Dole by 10 points, 53 percent to 43 percent. He has a lead of 8 points in the new poll.

1996 Presidential Choice

Clinton 50%

Dole 42%

Democrats in Congress apparently have not lost favor among voters. In the last poll, most voters said they would still vote for the Democrats in the 1996 elections. Democrats led the Republicans 49 percent to 43 percent. Republicans gained just one point in the latest poll.

Vote for Congress in 1996

Democrat 49%

Republican 44%

 

[jon_mx]

Polling is a lot different today. A lot more energy to do something about the budget. Dems and GOP share equally the blame for the shutdown. Clinton the politician >>>>>>>> Obama the politician.

 

[Mjolnirs]

Lucky that I work for the VA and it is fully funded to the end of the fiscal year.

I work for the VA too, but not VHA. I'm OI&T and that's a different pot of money. But, since VHA is funded and will be there, IT will be needed. Last I heard I will be working Monday, but not funded.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

Lucky that I work for the VA and it is fully funded to the end of the fiscal year.

I work for the VA too, but not VHA. I'm OI&T and that's a different pot of money. But, since VHA is funded and will be there, IT will be needed. Last I heard I will be working Monday, but not funded.

I also work VHA. I hear that VBA will be furloughed, as will all of GSA. All the OIT people on VHA are mission essential. You will be funded through the end of the FY. Don't know about cemetaries yet.

 

[humpback]

If it's anything like 1995 (when another GOP controlled congress under a Democrat in the whitehouse shutdown the government) then the GOP will lose some political capital among the American public:

The GOP doesn't control congress this time.

 

[Premier]

VBA is funded through next week. Announced today at work.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

VBA is funded through next week. Announced today at work.

That's good news.

 

[bueno]

CNN has an article about this today.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) --How many federal workers would be furloughed?

The government went dark twice during the Clinton administration: Some 800,000 workers were sent home during the first shutdown and 284,000 were sent home during the later shutdown.

Weren't they all then paid for the time?

They were then. Although a lot of people are commenting that they may not be as likely to get back-pay this time around.

Been hearing the same things. That this may be a furlough that actually bites. Lucky that I work for the VA and it is fully funded to the end of the fiscal year.

My wife is federal and non-essential, and will be furlougheed. She'd be flipping out right now if she was still single. But, as it is, I think she is looking forward to a "vacation." And I'm looking forward to having dinner ready when I get home, and the laundry and dishes being done too.

Nothing against your wife or anything, but why does the government employ people who are non-essential? What does that mean anyway?

 

[Premier]

It means just what it says. We have NE people where I work who pay vets benefits, give them counseling after returning from Iraq and in some cases push a mail cart. Doesn't mean that they are as "essential" as a nurse giving critical care to a vet but their job still serves a function that is needed.

You seem intelligent enough to know that bueno.

 

[Tau837]

CNN has an article about this today.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) --How many federal workers would be furloughed?

The government went dark twice during the Clinton administration: Some 800,000 workers were sent home during the first shutdown and 284,000 were sent home during the later shutdown.

Weren't they all then paid for the time?

They were then. Although a lot of people are commenting that they may not be as likely to get back-pay this time around.

Been hearing the same things. That this may be a furlough that actually bites. Lucky that I work for the VA and it is fully funded to the end of the fiscal year.

My wife is federal and non-essential, and will be furlougheed. She'd be flipping out right now if she was still single. But, as it is, I think she is looking forward to a "vacation." And I'm looking forward to having dinner ready when I get home, and the laundry and dishes being done too.

Nothing against your wife or anything, but why does the government employ people who are non-essential? What does that mean anyway?

While I'm sure the government doesn't really need all of the employees it employs, the "non-essential" tag isn't in and of itself a good indicator. As one example, if there is a shutdown, most of the personnel in the contract offices of most government organizations (e.g., SPAWAR, DARPA, ONR, etc.) will be furloughed. This means that during that time no contract actions (e.g., issuing new contracts, issuing contract modifications/extensions, etc.) can occur. It is not possible for our system to function indefinitely like that, as no new contracts or contract modifications can be issued while in that state.

 

[jonessed]

Polling is a lot different today. A lot more energy to do something about the budget. Dems and GOP share equally the blame for the shutdown. Clinton the politician >>>>>>>> Obama the politician.

Recent polls split it between the parties pretty evenly.I don't think the Democrats expected the House to pass a quick week-long stopgap though.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

CNN has an article about this today.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) --How many federal workers would be furloughed?

The government went dark twice during the Clinton administration: Some 800,000 workers were sent home during the first shutdown and 284,000 were sent home during the later shutdown.

Weren't they all then paid for the time?

They were then. Although a lot of people are commenting that they may not be as likely to get back-pay this time around.

Been hearing the same things. That this may be a furlough that actually bites. Lucky that I work for the VA and it is fully funded to the end of the fiscal year.

My wife is federal and non-essential, and will be furlougheed. She'd be flipping out right now if she was still single. But, as it is, I think she is looking forward to a "vacation." And I'm looking forward to having dinner ready when I get home, and the laundry and dishes being done too.

Nothing against your wife or anything, but why does the government employ people who are non-essential? What does that mean anyway?

While I'm sure the government doesn't really need all of the employees it employs, the "non-essential" tag isn't in and of itself a good indicator. As one example, if there is a shutdown, most of the personnel in the contract offices of most government organizations (e.g., SPAWAR, DARPA, ONR, etc.) will be furloughed. This means that during that time no contract actions (e.g., issuing new contracts, issuing contract modifications/extensions, etc.) can occur. It is not possible for our system to function indefinitely like that, as no new contracts or contract modifications can be issued while in that state.

In VHA, contracting is included as funded and good thing for that. If we lost contracting, many of our existing contracts would be dead in the water. Work would stop. Contracting isn't on the NE list for good reason.

 

[bueno]

CNN has an article about this today.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) --How many federal workers would be furloughed?

The government went dark twice during the Clinton administration: Some 800,000 workers were sent home during the first shutdown and 284,000 were sent home during the later shutdown.

Weren't they all then paid for the time?

They were then. Although a lot of people are commenting that they may not be as likely to get back-pay this time around.

Been hearing the same things. That this may be a furlough that actually bites. Lucky that I work for the VA and it is fully funded to the end of the fiscal year.

My wife is federal and non-essential, and will be furlougheed. She'd be flipping out right now if she was still single. But, as it is, I think she is looking forward to a "vacation." And I'm looking forward to having dinner ready when I get home, and the laundry and dishes being done too.

Nothing against your wife or anything, but why does the government employ people who are non-essential? What does that mean anyway?

While I'm sure the government doesn't really need all of the employees it employs, the "non-essential" tag isn't in and of itself a good indicator. As one example, if there is a shutdown, most of the personnel in the contract offices of most government organizations (e.g., SPAWAR, DARPA, ONR, etc.) will be furloughed. This means that during that time no contract actions (e.g., issuing new contracts, issuing contract modifications/extensions, etc.) can occur. It is not possible for our system to function indefinitely like that, as no new contracts or contract modifications can be issued while in that state.

I have never figured out what "non-essential" meant.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

[i have never figured out what "non-essential" meant.

It's all the workers that are necessary to run a skeleton crew needed to do functions that cannot be done without. For example, nurses, doctors, caregivers are positions that directly affect patients lives. Boiler plant operators need to be on hand 24/7 with high pressure steam to operate sterilizers, and maintain humidity and temperature setpoints in OR's. Biomedical engineers need to monitor all sorts of medical equipment, such as cath labs, xrays/MRIs. If you told any of these positions to go home, a high likelyhood of accident or death of a veteran is possible. Of course, there are clerk positions and folks on that handle benefits such as VHA loans. If a loan falls through for a veteran, that isn't going to be a life and death situation, right?

I hope that helps explain NE workers. It's a limited example, to be sure.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

WASHINGTON -- The United States government is on the verge of shutting down over a dispute about subsidized pap smears, according to sources familiar with the budget negotiations.The White House and Senate Democrats have publicly capitulated to ever-increasing Republican demands for spending cuts, but negotiations over the budget for the remainder of the fiscal year have shifted their focus from money to so-called riders -- provisions that restrict the federal government from spending money on certain projects or entities.Riders are used by members of Congress to make social policy without going through the regular congressional committee process, or they are used to benefit business interests by specifically blocking the government from spending money to write or enforce certain regulations.At a late-night White House meeting between the president and key congressional leaders, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) made clear that his conference would not approve funding for the government if any money were allowed to flow to Planned Parenthood through legislation known as Title X. "This comes down to women's health issues related to Title X," a person in the meeting told HuffPost.The negotiations are dominated by men: All of the principal negotiators in both parties are male, as are most of the senior staff involved. (House Democrats, led by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), have largely been left out of key talks.)House Republicans have been insisting the roadblock to cutting a new budget deal is not just the culture-war riders attached to the spending plan, but a source familiar with a top-level White House meeting earlier Thursday said most of the discussion in fact was about the riders.Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and President Barack Obama met at 1 p.m., and while the discussion started with the numbers, a senior Democratic aide said it soon turned to non-budgetary provisions like defunding Planned Parenthood, EPA rules -- and then some.Story continues belowAdvertisement"They started talking about the money, but most of meeting was spent on the riders," a senior Democratic source said. "It wasn't just the top-line stuff. They got down into the smaller details and provisions -- things like mountaintop mining and other rules."A similar dynamic played out late Thursday night in a meeting that led to no agreement.Following the midday meeting, Senate Democrats met to chart a course forward and emerged united in opposition to any riders regarding Planned Parenthood -- which does not use federal funds to pay for abortions -- or the EPA."The riders that have nothing to do with deficit reduction have sort of taken over Boehner and the Republican Party," Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) told reporters. "And unless they back off those riders, it's going to be impossible pretty much to avoid a shutdown. It's that simple."Sen. **** Durbin (D-Ill.), the number-two Democrat in the upper chamber, said that Boehner was under pressure on social issues not from the Tea Party, but from senior Republicans. "It's not about reducing the deficit. It's about hitting programs. He's gotta cut programs. And we think still we can reach agreement on the money. But he is under enormous pressure and he says it's not from the Tea Party, it's from the old guard, the Republican guard, that wants to once and for all show that they can force through some of these social issues, like abortion," Durbin told reporters Thursday evening in the Capitol. "The rider list gets longer and longer and non-negotiable."A GOP aide confirmed Durbin's claim that it's the senior members who are insisting on riders. Polls show that the public is likely to blame the Tea Party for any shutdown, but ironically, most new members are more passionate about spending than social issues. Yet the public is likely to conflate the Tea Party with the culture wars if the government ultimately shuts down over a dispute over funding for family planning."It's mostly a few older members who have seen an opportunity," said the GOP aide. "If you were to ask the freshmen individually, only a few would say this is all about the riders. And even amongst that smaller group, they would be split," with some focused on the EPA and others on restricting funds for health care."The true Tea Party guys in our conference are all about spending. That's it. Whatever the final deal is -- even if we got [the National Right to Life Committee] to score it -- we'd lose some guys because it didn't meet the full $100 billion," the aide added.HuffPost spoke to a number of GOP freshmen, many of whom said they were more committed to funding cuts than policy riders. Although most voted for Republican-sponsored policy riders, some said they were willing to compromise as long as the final figure for cuts was large enough."My motivation is reducing the threat of the federal budget deficit, and I am flexible as to what gets cut so long as things get cut sufficient to avoid a federal government bankruptcy," Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) told HuffPost in March.House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said Thursday that the spending-cut difference between the two parties was minuscule. "If you look at the amount of money that we're actually talking about, in terms of the difference of where the White House is and where the House Republicans are, it's equal to maybe one penny of the entire federal budget," Cantor said at a press conference. "So that means that you can't find one penny to cut out of every dollar that the IRS spends? You can't find one penny out of every dollar that the post office spends? That's what we're talking about here."Pelosi identified the distinction between the newer Tea Party members and the old guard weeks ago. "I had followed the debate very carefully on [the previous spending bill] and the 200 amendments. The newer members are about money, the more senior members are about riders," Pelosi said in mid-March.Democrats have no plans to defund Planned Parenthood at the insistence of House Republicans, Schumer said. "We have been against them from the beginning and we're not changing, nor should we. These are fights that have nothing to do with the deficit. We've been fighting on abortion for 40 years. The EPA issues have been out there for a long time. We've had votes on them. We're willing to have votes on every one of the riders they bring up," he said. "Why are they insistent? Very simply, because I don't think Speaker Boehner can resist the hard right wing of his party and they're insisting on the riders and they are the same people...who say, 'We don't care if the government shuts down.'"A GOP leadership aide, however, told HuffPost that the culture wars were not the sticking point. "Spending, spending, spending -- that's the big issue," said the aide, adding that the GOP wanted more than $33 billion in cuts.Schumer said earlier Thursday that Democrats were ready to meet Boehner's number, but that Boehner was using money as a distraction so that the public wouldn't realize his members were fighting over cultural issues."The only reason the numbers aren't solved is because Speaker Boehner knows that if he did that, then everyone would know that it's the riders, and he doesn't want that out. But if you look at how many hours in the rooms of negotiators that discussing riders, it's predominant," he said. "The Speaker's folks have admitted that we've been fair on the numbers.""At one point we had an agreement on money, even though Boehner denies it," said Durbin. "It's hard to believe they would shut down the government because they can't get a vote on family planning and Planned Parenthood. Honest to goodness. Is that what the last election was about? I don't think so."Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood, told HuffPost that the funding cut would be a threat to women's health. "This isn't about federal funds being cut from Planned Parenthood. The effort to single Planned Parenthood out, which is what they have done, would simply say that no one could go to Planned Parenthood anymore for health services through any federal program, so the real impact is on the women who we see. We have three million come to us every year and two million come through some kind of federal program either for an annual pap or for birth control or for a breast exam or even prenatal care," she said. "So that I think that' s the biggest threat here, is to women' s health."The cuts would disproportionately impact rural and under-served areas. "More than 70 percent of our health centers, more than 800 centers in the country, are located in rural America or communities that are medically under-served communities. That' s what' s getting lost here. It's not about funding for Planned Parenthood, it's about cutting off the largest provider of family planning in America to women."Conservative activists have long been pushing for cultural riders and now that Republicans control the House, finally have a chance to push them forward. "Why can't you slash Planned Parenthood and NPR and these-these non-vital programs? Why can't you slash them?" Fox News host Bill O'Reilly demanded of Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) Thursday evening."Well, we're talking about health care. We're talking about education," Rangel responded."Health care is another matter," O'Reilly said. "That has to be taken very methodically because people's lives are affected. Nobody's life is affected by NPR. Nobody's life is affected by Planned Parenthood. These are options."

Why would the Republicans try to slip this in with a troops pay extension and a one week stop-gap? I mean this is horrible, I'm very disappointed in this House, this Senate and this President. Can't we do things for the right reason anymore? oof