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.
What is the meaning of 'shut-down?'
Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes... The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
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.
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
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
This is true only if Congress agrees to make it so after the fact. It would be political suicide to not pay active duty. Civilian employees might be a toss up depending upon whether they get lumped into the same bill as the active duty.
As the budget situation now is significantly worse than 15 years ago, it seems unlikely that Civilian employees will be made whole after the fact. I love the republicans talking about 'where are the jobs' and then deciding to furlough close to 4 times the number of workers that were added in the latest jobs report over the sum of ~$7B. If the government is closed for a week, that's less than the interest on the National Debt.
The Active Duty military people will be forced to remain, even those that fulfill office type jobs, and will be unpaid until a resolution comes.
This is worse than rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. This is arguing deck chair arrangement theory.
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.
It would certainly be political suicide, unless carefully phrased(you can do a lot of crazy stuff to the troops in the name of supporting them, if your spin-fu is good); but, arguably, not paying the civilians might actually present more of a practical problem.
The more heavily active-duty a soldier is, the greater the degree, and likelihood, that some or all of his basic logistical necessities(food, housing, some degree of medical care) will be being taken care of by Uncle Sam. They might not like not being paid; but they won't be starving in the street(and, because it's the military, just leaving qualifies as desertion...)
Civilian employees, by contrast, with a few possible exceptions in isolated bases or research facilities or the like, are generally only seeing wages+benefits, and are responsible for turning those into food, housing, etc. on the local market. You won't have to go too far down the pay grade before you start running into civilian employees who are not too many weeks away from being unable to make minor little payments like 'rent' and 'groceries'. Quitting wouldn't necessarily be a good career move; but it isn't something their employer can do anything about, and they won't have much of a choice about at least moonlighting elsewhere, if not quitting entirely and job-hunting, if they can't keep food on the table.
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
Officially, civilians don't get paid. Not sure about the military. Last time, when they finally passed the resolution they opted to retroactively restore pay for those days (even though no work got done) as a good faith measure. they also realize what a paltry sum federal employee wages are when compared to the actual debt total, so it was a relatively cheap form of goodwill from the guys that just finished pissing off most of the country.
Just be careful when you're returning copper for cash that you don't accidentally cut Armenia's fiber internet line.
-mrxak
Onions Will Kill You
Uhm, wow.
Blame exists on both sides, but right now the shutdown is being caused by a lack of willingness to compromise.
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.
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
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.
And this is good for our country?
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.
Also, your little statistic about "substantially better paid than the national average": stop drinking the Kool-Aid. It's only true if you ignore degrees and experience. I could earn more outside the government in my field; I choose not to because I love what I do and I enjoy knowing my work has a direct impact on the entire country.
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
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
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.
just leaving qualifies as desertion
Slavery is illegal. There have been a number of lawsuits where people have tried to enter voluntary slavery schemes, and every one was found illegal. Them not paying you but requiring you to be there is slavery (well, actually indentured servitude, which is legally identical at this point). Additionally, you sign a contract to enlist. That contract indicates that you'll get paid for your service. Once they don't pay you, they have breached the contract. The contract may require grievances within the contract be handled by the UCMJ, but legal precedent has indicated that a contract requiring one type of remedy only for violating the contract is effectively invalid if one side determines that the remedy is unfair.
This underscores the problem with using civilian contractor for front line supplies and services.
What, that when you violate your contract with active duty personnel, they will still work for free under penalty of firing squad (or whatever the penalty is for desertion in a time of war), but the civilians won't work for free because you can't shoot them? How is that a problem? If you can't afford to pay for them, perhaps you should evaluate policy of making war while bankrupt. There's nothing wrong with paying civilians for critical services. They are no less reliable than military (and in many cases are ex-military). There's a problem with slavery, whether you are civilian or military.
Learn to love Alaska