Slashdot Mirror
Feds Prep For E-Gov Shutdown
dcblogs writes "If the federal government is shutdown midnight Friday, the feds plan to stop updating government Web sites that aren't delivering essential services. 'Most Web sites will not continue, only those Web sites that are part of these accepted activities would continue to operate,' the senior White House official said Tuesday. 'Accepted activities,' refers to essential, life and safety-related government services. The IRS, however, will continue to accept tax returns filed electronically and to process payments. 'We need to be able to collect the money that is owed to the U.S. government,' the official said. Paper-based returns won't be processed."
Electronic tax returns will be processed but paper ones won't? Don't they need the money whether it shows up electronically or as a check?
If lawmakers can't agree to a budget for the time period starting 7 MONTHS AGO, how are they going to get a FY2012 budget done?
Federal managers aren't spending more than the Continuing Resolution levels, and should be saving some money in case of cuts. Funding them over the CR level would just lead to waste spending in the 'use it or lose it' model (They have until September to spend it all).
They need to pass a status quo budget for FY2011, and get started on FY2012. That is where the problem lies, and where a solution can take place.
The IRS, however, will continue to accept tax returns filed electronically and to process payments. 'We need to be able to collect the money that is owed to the U.S. government,' the official said.
So will the government shut-down or not? From some online dictionary, shut-down refers to: "ceasing operations or cause to cease operating."
Now if the IRS will still be working in some capacity, the government will not be shut-down. It's that simple.
Heck, this whole thing reminds me of our ISPs' 'unlimited' data plans which turn out to be capped to a ceiling. It's the same thing with our neighbours to the north...Canada.
My advice: get a better word, for example, 'slow-down.'
The federal shutdown is only affecting 800,000 employees out of a few million uniformed servicemen, civilian employees and contractors. I would be surprised if it's even 25% of the federal workforce.
What this shutdown means is that until the budget goes through, the feds aren't buying any new toys and those considered "non-essential" to the mission of their agency (or department, in some cases) will be treated like dead weight.
Ironically, this would be an excellent time for an audit of the federal labor force and contracts to see who should be permanently let go and/or have their contract torn up.
it was permanent. This shutdown only brings a temporary respite to the oppression the American people suffer at the hands of it's own government.
Yes, my work on automation software flight plan management for the FAA is very oppressive to you. Douchebag.
The real truth of the matter is, the Democrats while in power refused to pass a budget for this fiscal year. Worse they refused to even submit one to the floor all because they were afraid of the ramifications of doing so before the election. In other words, if they had submitted their budget they would have had to campaign with that large deficit number hanging over their heads.
I am all for a government shut down, the problem I have is the press is still giving Obama a free pass. When the press decides to come back to the side of the public and keep Obama honest we might see some progress. Right now they are making this all out to be a Republican anti-(insert minority group/poor here) issue instead of pointing out that if Pelosi had not purposefully ignored her duty we would be fighting over the FY2012 now instead of fighting over something that should have been in place before the election.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Whether or not it shuts down I'm sure the Active Duty military and civilian employees will be paid. As I recall that's the way it worked the last time.
If the FAA is shut down then twitter could be used to transmit ICAO messages (FPL, CHG, APR, etc) and mobile pbone use on aircraft could be made compulsory.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Isn't most software for the government written by contractors? As such, isn't that money already allocated? I would expect you would continue to get paid. Now, the air traffic controllers, on the other hand...
Yes, my work on automation software flight plan management for the FAA is very oppressive to you. Douchebag.
This function could just as well be performed by the private sector, more efficiently, and by people who do not regard their paymasters as douchebags. Welcome to the real world.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
Here's a handy little tip for you. As long as you are able to complain about being oppressed by a government in a public forum, you aren't.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Isn't most software for the government written by contractors? As such, isn't that money already allocated? I would expect you would continue to get paid. Now, the air traffic controllers, on the other hand...
It depends on the project. The particular project I work on is a mixed team of contractors and feds, and I happen to be a fed. Regardless, the contractors are being furloughed along with the feds, since the contracting companies won't be able to bill the government during the shutdown. And no, I will not be getting paid unless Congress decides to back-pay. And with the Republicans in power, I doubt that's going to happen.
Given that a shutdown means that work deemed non-essential will not go on, I'm struggling to see how a story about how web sites delivering non-essential services won't be updated is a headline of note.
When government shuts down, Congress and the President should have to work sans pay until a budget is hammered out. (Not their aides, mind you, but the actual Senators/Representatives/President.) After the budget is passed, they can resume collecting pay but lose out on any back pay. This would ensure that any shut downs are as shortlived as possible.
Not that it'll ever happen though, apart from one or two Congressfolk publicly rejecting their salary as a "show of support"/upcoming election ploy.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
it was permanent. This shutdown only brings a temporary respite to the oppression the American people suffer at the hands of it's own government.
Oh, yes, the American people are so oppressed. Maybe you should go live in the Middle East, or China, or Nigeria or any other place that the people really are oppressed. The sad thing is that the American people are so narcissistic that they think they are oppressed when they have more freedom and autonomy than most anywhere else on the planet.
Yes, my work on automation software flight plan management for the FAA is very oppressive to you. Douchebag.
This function could just as well be performed by the private sector, more efficiently, and by people who do not regard their paymasters as douchebags. Welcome to the real world.
No, not really. Basically there are two ways this goes down in government:
1.) Pay Oracle, Boeing, Lockheed, etc. to build it for millions and millions of dollars, then millions more to maintain the godawful piece of VB garbage, or
2.) Retain control of the project with competent leaders, do it right, and save money both on the initial product, as well as on the support that's likely to last decades
Believe it or not, feds are generally the people who used to work in the private sector on the contract side, but were deemed too important to lose and thus offered a federal position.
Also, I do not regard my paymaster (my boss) as a douchebag. I regard you specifically as a douchebag.
I want to know, did something happen that the government wants to shut down all internet website.....is this like a getting ready for something type move....like some reason why they do not want to be stuck with websites all together....???
If anyone has links or info on why this would be their move...please share.
They mean at the end of the day Friday which is midnight Saturday. Midnight is the first moment of a new day. That is why it it 12:00 *am* or *00:00* hours.
I'm sure you can cite an official standard telling to which day midnight belongs?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Over a period of about 2 months, Obama draws a salary of something like $66,000. He has millions of dollars of personal wealth. Not paying him isn't much of a threat.
It would likely have more impact on Representatives and Senators, but even there, there are hundreds of them with large personal fortunes.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
BigWingzDaddy: I'm in ur airspace, landing on ur runways (JFK #7) #jfk
TehFlyinator: Hai guise you know what my altitude is in feet? IT'S OVER NINE THOUSAAAND! #lolz
CommercialCeilingCat: Now taking off my zig (JFK #2) #jfk
LearJetGangsta: Sorry I nearly hit u CCC, was holding the damn iPhone wrong #nearcollision #holdingitwrong
CommercialCeilingCat: np
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
You think your DMV of the sky is so great only because you are not capable of imagining an alternative.
As a taxpayer, I am paying you. I am your boss. Call me a douchebag if you wish.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
From TFA:
"Herndon, Va.-based Xceedium counts numerous federal agencies among its customers, and Ammon said, 'We have customers that are prohibited from purchasing anything until they get an approved budget.'"
What a horrible thing to have happen! Getting an approved budget before you purchase something? What is our government putting its poor employees through!
Nice website, bro.
Do your Government masters pay you to make snide comments? Or are you the one who is really employed by them, trying out a bit of reverse psychology? I await your insightful response.
Why would a totalitarian government need to do anything about people complaining, when no-one cares?
I am trolling
They're on unpaid leave, likely for a few weeks. I know this may come as a shock to a lot of slashdotters, but federal employees and contractors are substantially better paid than the national average. If they can't survive for a few weeks while Congress sorts this mess out, then they deserve it.
Instead, begin gather volunteers to fulfill a mission of the government you fell qualified to fill and begin to accept donations. Optionally in bitcoins
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
There was a bill proposed to not pay congress for as long as there was a shutdown. It was just posturing of course, because Congress cannot change their own wages for the current session, by law. Also it was ridiculous to think it would pass because it was proposed by a D when the R controls the house.
So basically, yes, congress will get payed, but there's no legal way for congress to change that, even if they really wanted to.
Someone had to do it.
See above, the congress cannot by law change their own salaries for the current session.
Also, their staffs, if they want them to keep working, have to be declared "essential personnel" which they have some sort of special prerogative to do.
Someone had to do it.
You think your DMV of the sky is so great only because you are not capable of imagining an alternative.
As a taxpayer, I am paying you. I am your boss. Call me a douchebag if you wish.
Imagining a thing does not make it so
Hold on a sec, is the FAA shutting down if they don't figure this out? My grandfather has to fly home to Massachusetts from Texas on Saturday. Would he be stuck there? Serious question, because he really can't support himself if he gets stuck out there.....
What's the problem? With a record high deficit it is obvious that spending must be decreased and income increased. Start by restoring taxes to pre-GWB level, make serious cutbacks in the department of homeland security and cut military expenditure by at least 10%. And stop harassing tourists and you might even get more of us visiting your country. Then the healthcare sector also need an overhaul, but that will take longer before giving any budget effects I suspect.
Air Traffic Control is considered essential, and will continue to operate, as will essential support. At times I wish they would shut that down with the rest though, just to put a fine point on exactly why funding the government is important.
Uhm, wow.
Blame exists on both sides, but right now the shutdown is being caused by a lack of willingness to compromise.
Then fine them x amount for each day, or better yet, per hour that they don't have a completed budget.
To say it screws everyone equally is wrong.
Most higher income citizens couldn't care less, personally, about nearly all government programs. They still may support their funding and existance, but they wouldn't personally be hurt much if programs went away entirely.
So no, it is not 'equal screwing' in reality, only politically - and in the end who's politics wins or loses is meaningless.
I true, full shutdown would cause rioting in the streets within days. Granted, it would mostly be senior citizens, but they're mean when they're hungry!
wow, you need to find different pendants to listen too from time to time.
You might want to fact check a little.
the 2010 budget passed. I"m not sure why you think otherwise.
There was some discussion with Blue dogs.
The republican stalled the government through many tactics that where, quite frankly, abusive.
To answer your question:
The republican created an unrealistic and harmful budget. The current Republicans idea of compromise is 'Do it our way or you not compromising.'
So yes, the blame rest solely on the Republican/Tea Party.
Oh, I just read your sig. I should have done that first and not bothered. Clearly you can't think beyond whatever you neo-con masters claim. Her is an interesting fact: That 'whistle blower' situation was manufactured by the media. Specifically: Fox News.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
So will the government shut-down or not? From some online dictionary, shut-down refers to: "ceasing operations or cause to cease operating."
Sigh... Love to hear people being uselessly pedantic regarding the definition of "shutdown" which is well understood in this context by all parties involved. This has happened before and it will happen again and the word isn't going to change. Get over it.
We're beyond broke. We're 14 trillion in debt. There is no room for compromise on a budget that is only the beginning of a fix. Saying the Republicans are wrong for not compromising makes no sense.
Say you make $100k a year.
Your wife starts spending $500k a year.
You give her a budget that says she can only spend $300k a year and it's just the beginning, more will be cut later.
She says no way, I want $400k a year.
Are you really going to compromise? Seriously? I hope to God you don't run the finances in your household.
When were there sixty members of the Democratic Party seated in the Senate all at the same time?
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
But from what I understand, the Democrats aren't offering up anything for cuts, and are just trying to continue overspending at their current levels. If the media's wrong,
$40 billion in cuts spread over several years when the single year deficit is close to $1 TRILLION doesn't qualify as offering anything either. That is a rounding error in a 3 Trillion dollar budget. Let's be frank, NEITHER party has offered a proposal that is meaningful in any way. The cuts being proposed by the Republican party members are insubstantial amounts designed to score political points, not to actually correct our fiscal situation. Any proposal which doesn't have some combination of tax increases and/or spending cuts totaling in the HUNDREDS of Billions of dollars (minimum) is not a serious proposal. The notion that either party is being responsible in this situation is ridiculous.
In short you are correct that the Democrats haven't proposed anything but realistically neither have the Republicans.
Answer: It's not. This shutdown (if it happens) is OWNED by the Democrat party
Actually I think the current dysfunction at all levels of government in the United States is "owned" by partisan assholes who put the interests of the private organization they belong to before everything else.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
Why not?
I'm serious, I have never administrated a large site like that, but I could technically walk away from the sites I do administrate for several months on end and not have to worry about much of anything outside of security vulnerabilities discovered in the mean time.
Am I just not building enough job security into my jobs or is there something seriously different about these sites that require IT staff to constantly be present?
I wonder what would happen if those furloughed employees came to work anyway, under the assumption that they would not get paid for their time. I know other expenses exist (utilities, etc.), but the big chunk of expenses in any organization is salaries and wages. I wouldn't expect something like this to go on for more than a week or so, but would it not send a message to Congress that they are not all-powerful and that people actually care about this country?
Actually, no. The shutdown would begin at 2011-04-09T00:01-04. (The federal government reckons midnight always as the last minute of the preceding day, not the first minute of the following day.)
If you are owed money from the IRS, you can file tax returns for up to 3 years ago.
If you OWE the IRS money, they can demand payment for up to 10 years of back tax payments.
**I am not an accountant, this is simply what I have heard from my accountant, and it may have changed recently.
Exactly this whole issue rests on the shoulders of House Democrats who under Pelosi should have drafted and FY2011 budget passed it and sent it to the Senate. This was all political calculation on their part. They already had lots of heat on them from Obama Care's disgraceful arm twisting method of passing and did not want to have to go into elections with a budget to answer for as well. The Republicans really need to do better at pointing this out.
Democrats control the Senate and the Presidency has House Democrats drafted a budget it would most likely have been passed, and certainly could have gotten through the Senate and across Obama's desk. So all you little liberals out there if your favorite program sees its 2011 budget cut, if your pet project is furloughed in a shutdown its really not the Republicans you should blame, its your own pathetic leadership. Now FY2012 is another matter.
The sad truth is at present debt levels and given what for the last 30 years have been apparent political realties non of this matters. It all amounts to a little less butter for some and little more for someone else. None of the real problems will or can be addressed. The world will keep on financing this nonsense because they don't know how to do anything other than by US Treasuries and would rather pretend the US is credit worthy than deal with the fact its not, which in a sick way makes it credit worthy, since its known the debt can be rolled over. Meanwhile rather than demand a balanced budget the citizens of this country will go on pay instead a hidden (VERY REGRESSIVE) inflation tax to the oil barons abroad and export the rest of our remaining wealth to the Chinese because they are the only ones who can produce goods cheaply enough Dollars will still buy them.
This all ends in another depression and eventually World War sometime in the future maybe 40 years or so.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
wow, you need to find different pendants to listen too from time to time.
You might want to fact check a little.
the 2010 budget passed. I"m not sure why you think otherwise.
Because it hasn't been passed......we haven't had a budget since the September 2010. Starting September of 2010, congress has just been passing continuing resolutions agreeing to operate the government at current levels + new legislation. If a budget had already passed we wouldn't have the "Impending Shutdown because of the evil XXX" problem. We'd be fighting over the next budget.
Generally I shy away from Wikipedia, but the information and sources here are mostly accurate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_States_federal_budget
We've been told to pull the plug on most websites.
No work means no sysadmins to monitor if we've been defaced / hacked / whatever, so we've been told to expect them being blocked at the external firewalls, unless we can provide a specific reason of why it has to remain online.
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
You are correct. The 2010 budget was passed in 2009. Where the OP made their mistake was that the fact of the matter is the Democrats did not pass the 2011 budget, which should have been passed in September of 2010. However, the Democrats did not want to have to defend their budget deficit while they were campaigning for re-election, so they did not even create a budget bill in 2010. If the Democrats had done their job when they controlled both Houses of Congress and the WHite House, we would not be in this situation.
The fact of the matter is that last fall, the American voters sent a clear message that they want Congress to reduce the federal budget. The Democrats vastly increased the Federal Budget in 2009 in response to the financial crisis. Now they want to use that "emergency" spending as the baseline for al future budgets.
Historically, since WWII the Federal government has spent around 21% of GDP each year, while collecting 18-19% of GDP in revenue. That is not sustainable. However, in the last several years the Federal government has been spending close to 25% of GDP, that is making the problem much more urgent. Raising taxes is unlikely to increase the % of GDP that the federal government collects, since that has been stable as the tax rates have changed.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
They can't allow them to run unsupervised. Can you imagine the target they'd be for any politically motivated hacker? And they can't pay the technicians watching the hardware, or for the electricity for the servers, etc. So the plugs are pulled.
Interesting. I pretty much thought that was the job of the IDS and rules created in it compounded with securing the servers and limited services being exposed. I didn't realize people actually sat there and watched traffic looking for intruders when they could be pretty much reading the comics in the newspaper waiting for the IDS to send an alarm.
I agree, there would or could be a lot more hacking attempts. I also agree that someone would need to do something about it once it happened. I just wasn't aware of what exactly the IT staff was doing in that regard. I figured 99% of their duties is fielding idiot requests from users who don't understand that just because they set a password with their email, they might not be using the same password when accessing their accounts on the server. Well, that or implementing new functions or altering the existing ones to suit the changes in business needs.
The government shutting down is the best thing that could happen to citizens and taxpayers. Let's hope that we not only see a shutdown, but that it lasts for a decade or two. There will be one or two useful things the government does that will be missed, but hundreds of stupid things that will be welcome to live without.
This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
I figured 99% of their duties is fielding idiot requests from users
Probably; but like firemen, it's the unpredictable 1% of the time when they need to act quickly that is the reason you need them on duty.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/04/government-shutdown-will-screw-you-out-of-better-gps/
It is a systemic/US issue not a democrat or republican issue. Both are unable restrain themselve when it comes to spending.
As for the 2011 budget not being passed...when it was due is September, the democrats had control of the government when it comes to passing laws. Senate, Congress and Whitehouse.........
Surplus? What's that?
sanity and reason eh?
Ok the Dems when they had both house during the last congress would have ordinarily passed a 2011 budget, thats right normally the next years budget is passed before the current fiscal year end. That should have been done while Dems controlled both houses but they DECIDED not to and most likely because the sought to avoid having to be accountable for the budget going into elections where they were already polling very badly.
So now you expect Republicans to vote to fund things they don't want to fund when even Democrats who ostensibly do want to fund many of these programs refused to do it. That is not sane or reasonable pal, its not even fair.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Actually, I'm saying the Republicans are wrong for not compromising on what to cut. The differences between the Democratic budget and the Republican budget, are not much different in the amount being cut, only where those cuts are happening. The Republicans insist on cutting Education, Medicare, Research, NPR, and Planned Parenthood, etc. While the Democrats' proposal chooses to cut Military spending, removing tax cuts, etc. They made concessions on cutting some of the things the Republicans want to cut, but they won't compromise at all on choosing different things that can be cut.
Have you actually taken a look at the US Congress?
There was no surplus while Clinton was president. He was still borrowing from the social security trust fund to make ends meet. Just because he was not borrowing from outside sources does not mean he was balancing the budget. That money will still need to be paid back from the general fund at a future date.
And here's a handy tip for you, if your walking along a path and see signs warning you of quicksand ahead, even though where you currently are is safe, it doesn't mean your wont go under when you continue onwards.
Freedoms a little bit like air, you don't notice it until its gone..
So you might say the Republicans are telling the Democrats they have to ride in the back? Oh wait...
There is no room for compromise on a budget that is only the beginning of a fix. Saying the Republicans are wrong for not compromising makes no sense.
Both want to spend more than we take in. The argument is more about which corporations to give welfare to, rather than how much of it to give away.
So yes, the Republicans are wrong for not compromising.
Learn to love Alaska
The fact of the matter is that last fall, the American voters sent a clear message that they want Congress to reduce the federal budget.
Uh, no. They voted for a party that is responsible for the majority of the debt. Republicans are small spenders is a lie that is tossed around when the Democrats are in power. And the Republicans aren't submitting a balanced budget. They are just finding programs important to Democrats (condoms and alternative energy) and cutting them out. That's not balancing the budget, that's political posturing designed to cause a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation for the Democrats. Either they approve the budget that cuts things they want and funds everything the Republicans want, or they don't, in which case the government shuts down.
It's not like the Republicans are cutting anything they like that they fund. All the subsidies for corn are still in there. And the billions for oil companies. Yup, all in there. Just cutting condoms (while whining about all the children poor people have - I still haven't figured out that one) and any power not generated from dead dinosaurs (while still fully funding payments to oil companies). That's not fiscal responsibility. That's spiteful politicking.
Call me when the Republicans are fiscally responsible. The last time that happened was about 100 years ago.
Learn to love Alaska
Everyone in the private sector thinks that their paymasters are douchebags as well.
Learn to love Alaska
Uh, no. They voted for a party that is responsible for the majority of the debt.
That is not true. The Democrats controlled Congress since 2007. Most of the debt which accumulated under George W. Bush came since 2007. Even if that were not true, the Democrats have added more debt to the Federal budget since Obama took office than was added in the eight years that George W. Bush was President.
If the Democrats had proposed any spending bills during this "negotiation", you might have a point, but they haven't. All the Democrats have done is propose numbers in the press with no details. Better yet, the Democrats could have passed a budget last year when they controlled both Houses of Congress (which is the way it is supposed to be done).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
To my knowledge, no budget was ever passed without the signature of the president. As such, every president approved the budget under his administration. Additionally, the insane practice of pointing to Congress or the presidency depending on who they want to blame, rather than who actually was responsible is the reason we have the problem we do.
Partisan pricks like you caused the mess we are in.
Learn to love Alaska
What are you talking about. In 2010 when the budget was supposed to be passed the democrats didn't even submit a budget in to be filibustered. They also had enough majority it would have taken 6 republican vote to overcome a filibuster. Both parties at the time were in favor of keeping the status quo to fight it later....after fall elections.
The filibuster is always bitched about but the party in power never wants to remove the filibuster because in the future when they are the minority they want to use it. Remember a few years ago when the democrats filibusters judicial nominees during Bush, or republicans filibustering gun bans under Clinton. Every time the majority bitches and moans but never changes the rule because they know the pendulum will someday swing the other way and they will want to use the filibuster.
If the media would be less complacent over what a cut is in government baseline budgeting verses absolute dollars I think the narrative would be a lot different for the country. Because even if the republicans came forth with a budget of "No new spending, We will spend the exact same amount this year as we did last year." They would be railed against for cutting 400 billion from the budget because programs have automatic spending increases build into them and the cut that is talked about on TV is not absolute dollars but a reduction in the baseline of the next budget.
That still does not change the fact that the U.S. government debt has increased more in the last two years under Obama than it did for the entire eight years under Bush. So, when the American voters voted for Republicans in 2010, Republicans were not the party responsible for the majority of the debt, since the majority of the debt had accumulated while Obama was President and Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
The first year of Obama was under a budget approved by Bush. Take that into account, and your statement is false. Furthermore, it doesn't address the issue of the "message" sent by electing the party that created most of the debt. It wasn't a question of which president to blame, but the party. The Republicans created more debt than the Democrats. Though, that's only because in the time since all fiscal responsibility was abandoned by both parties, Republicans held the office more.
But, since you are obviously pushing a false party line, instead of addressing reality, it's obvious that you aren't interested in fiscal responsibility either. You just want to blame "the other guys." Both parties are the same. Sure, they quibble about which federal programs to cut, but they both agree whole-heartedly to spend more than we take in. There may be some reasons that there was a push for Republicans in the last election, but "budget balancing" wasn't something the Republicans have even pretended to do since before they elected Reagan. So if that is the reason why people voted Republican, then all of those voters are insane.
Learn to love Alaska
You accuse me of pointing to the President or Congress according to who I want to blame, yet you do the same thing blaming the Republicans for budgets passed by Democrats, but approved by Bush. No, republicans in general are not fiscally responsible, but some Republicans are. Democrats don't even claim to favor reducing spending. You know, if a voter needs to choose between a politician who claims to want to reduce spending but does not do so and a politician who claims to want to increase spending and does, which one is the voter who wants the government to reduce spending better off voting for?
I would argue the former because in that case the politician cannot claim a mandate to increase spending.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
No, republicans in general are not fiscally responsible, but some Republicans are. Democrats don't even claim to favor reducing spending.
So, since Republicans are proven to be worse at being "fiscally responsible" you are arguing that people should vote for the fiscally irresponsible party that's proven to be liars than the fiscally irresponsible party that doesn't lie (at least about that one thing)? Again, like I said, voting for the Republicans for their fiscal responsibility is simply insane. They are proven irresponsible every time they get a chance, yet people somehow think that they will be more responsible next time?
which one is the voter who wants the government to reduce spending better off voting for? I would argue the former because in that case the politician cannot claim a mandate to increase spending.
In practice, the Democrats have grown the debt more slowly than the Republicans. Therefore, I would discount the lies told by all politicians about what they'd "like to do" if elected, and instead look at what they have actually done. Furthermore, voting for the Republicans because they say one thing and do the other is rewarding liars by putting them into office. As such, I would argue that your statements are both factually and logically incorrect. If you want fiscal responsibility, the only option is to vote for a third party. If you don't want to vote for a third party (I don't know why that would be the case, but based on US voters, most people have a strong desire to not vote 3rd party), then you should always vote for the party not in the White House. Not because they are Republican or Democrat, but that the more conflict there is on Capitol Hill, the less they'll get done. The less they get done, the better off we are.
It's sad when the best government we can hope for is the ineffective one. But given that the sum of military expenses (mostly constant from the Bush administration) plus the interest on the debt (as of the end of the last budget signed by Bush) exceeds the federal income tax receipts, it would be impossible for the Democrats or Republicans to balance the budget, even if they submitted a budget of $0. So focusing on which few billion the parties want to target in order to punish supporters of the other party is irrelevant politicking. Neither party wants to or has tried to balance the budget. Even the Teabaggers are warmongers who don't say the words necessary to balance the budget (which are, "we must abandon a standing military until we reduce our debt"). And, unless they do that (or default on the debt) the budget can never be balanced. So bickering over what will be funded until the US is bankrupt is, as others have said, like bickering about the bar tab on the Titanic.
Learn to love Alaska