Slashdot Mirror
Are Shuttered Gov't Sites Actually Saving Money?
Lots of U.S. government agencies' websites are partly or fully shut down, many of them with messages like this one, from the front page of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory: "Effective 7 p.m. EDT, Friday, 4 October 2013, the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) temporarily suspended all US operations because of the US Federal government shutdown. All NRAO facilities and buildings are closed; NRAO personnel, other than a skeleton crew, are on furlough and cannot respond to emails or phone calls." Brian Doherty argues at Reason that many of these shutterings don't actually seem to make any financial sense, and that the sites are down more as a public statement than out of fiscal prudence. If you're involved with running an organizational web site (government-funded or not), do you agree?
False choice.
One can have a smaller, more effective federal government, as opposed to a large, bloated, wasteful, ineffective, and repressive federal government.
And a great starting point is the defunding of the ACA.
As for you calling the opinions of the Tea Party 'blather' ... well, exactly how is the federal government doing the taxpayers whom they claim to serve a service, by sending all the employees home, barricading open air public parks that could easily remain open, and then PAYING FEDERAL WORKERS TO STAY AT HOME AND DO NOTHING USING TAX MONEY COLLECTED VIA THREAT OF FORCE from the public ?
Get a clue.
Many of these actions are clearly not "required". Park facilities that don't normally have round-the-clock security are now being patrolled and guarded by park rangers who have been told to keep everyone out. The logic doesn't make sense because these are facilities that don't have any services being discontinued that would necessitate a total closure of the lands and monuments during a government shutdown. It is purely punitive action designed to make regular people suffer in the hopes they whine to their congressman about the budget negotiations.
All though... the Tea Party Republicans that instigated this mess - let's please not debate this, it's not my main point - and others who are pushing for smaller government, believe that much (most?) of the government is wasteful and unnecessary. Well... those parks and monuments are part of this government - built and/or maintained by this government. Making them unavailable also demonstrates what things would be like without them - you know, with a smaller government without all the "non-essential" stuff.
But, "we like and want these parks and monuments" they cry, "and they should be open." Sure, I agree, but that's *your* priority; other people may have other priorities. One small group of people don't get to dictate what's important or essential to everyone. The government is as large as it is because Congress made it so and Congress was elected by us all. If you (in the generic) don't like parts of it, elect different people and try to change things through Constitutional processes - you know, like passing bills into law, reforming Congressional practices - not by throwing a tantrum because you can't get otherwise what *you* want, when *you* want it.
[rant] House Republicans and Tea Party members need to grow the fuck up. [/rant]
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .