The View From Your Shutdown

A reader quotes another:

“I’m on furlough, and …. I’m worrying about how this is going to impact the household budget, wondering if I might need to apply for unemployment benefits if this lingers on (and just how I go about doing that).” I’m employed by a state university but my office is located at a federal research lab. I’m not allowed in my office during the shutdown and I can’t access the federal computers and datasets, but I’m expected to work as best as I can and I will continue to be paid. I know I am fortunate compared to my federal colleagues!

At the final, pre-shutdown “Town Hall Meeting” in the federal lab on Monday, one of the federal scientists asked about unemployment. Someone in the audience had researched that: regulations vary by state, and in our state a furloughed federal employee cannot apply for unemployment benefits because they are considered still employed (even though they are not allowed to go to work and are not being paid)!  I don’t even know what part of that last sentence to emphasize. The human toll is potentially huge.

Another reader:

I’m a federal employee, and so is my wife (we have two kids in college).  I can’t complain too much (at least in the short run); we’re prudent and we have some savings.  But between the two of us, the shutdown is costing us about $500/day.  If we end up getting it back, that’ll make a rather big difference.

But in the interim, we’re slowing the economy. How? Just today, our contractor came by; he was going to start to do $3000 of repairs of a basement struck with mold (to which I am severely allergic).  We told him: sorry, we can’t afford it now, go home.  So even though we are weathering the shutdown (in the short term), those who rely upon our spending are getting hurt.

Another:

I run a small, rural domestic violence and rape crisis center in Northern California. We are the only provider of this kind for the entire county and we are supported through funds from the Violence Against Women Act. We just received this email from our grant monitor in Sacramento regarding our federal funds:

Office of Justice Programs (OJP) have sufficient resources to remain operational through Friday, October 4, 2013.  This means that OJP staff will be available to assist grantees and OJP payment systems and services will be available through October 4, 2013. Should funding not be restored by October 4, 2013, OJP will cease all operations and California will not be able to draw down funds and reimburse your invoices.

This means the State of California cannot draw down the VAWA funds to pay us for our services – which by the way, are mandated by law. We are not quality-of-life providers, like social services, but we’re not quite emergency services providers either, like law enforcement. We are somewhere in between and apparently not considered essential.

I can tell you with some certainty that many of the rural domestic violence shelters (who don’t have wealthy communities to draw from) will not be operational should the VAWA funding not be rolling down as scheduled. I can also tell you with certainty, that right now almost every shelter in the State is housing not only adult victims of abuse, but many, many children, all of whom may be forced to hit the rickety road soon, compliments of the mostly males members of the “shutdown coalition”.

Another

Yes I’m on furlough, but who cares. What is that compared to a small group of thugs hijacking my country in hopes that the uninsured will remain so. Crush them. As long as it takes.

The View From Your Shutdown

photo-28

A reader writes:

I’m on furlough, and for the first time, I am worried that this might be more than a couple-day affair. And for the first time, I’m worrying about how this is going to impact the household budget, wondering if I might need to apply for unemployment benefits if this lingers on (and just how I go about doing that). But you are right. Obama’s got to hang tough and not give into the thuggery. I so damn sick of hearing the GOP complain about how Obama won’t negotiate. THIS is simply not anything to be negotiated over!

Another sends the above photo:

I know this is a minor inconvenience compared to, say, a federal employee not getting a pay check, but I was LIVID when I drove up to my favorite place to run at the Chatahoochee Recreation area to find it closed. There is some irony that I have to find a new place to exercise because Republicans are unhinged about a healthcare law.

Another reader:

Thank you for publishing that letter from Afghanistan. I also work in a foreign affairs agency that is not DoD, and I am continuing to show up to work (albeit safely in DC). It feels absurd to be showing up to work in an office that supports democracy abroad when our own government is a shambles. This shutdown is defeating and exhausting, especially for civil servants, since Congress shows no interest in or concern for the plight of any non-military federal employee.

Yesterday, all federal employees received a letter from the president:

You do all this in a political climate that, too often in recent years, has treated you like a punching bag. You have endured three years of a Federal pay freeze, harmful sequester cuts, and now, a shutdown of our Government. And yet, you persevere, continuing to serve the American people with passion, professionalism, and skill.

None of this is fair to you. And should it continue, it will make it more difficult to keep attracting the kind of driven, patriotic, idealistic Americans to public service that our citizens deserve and that our system of self-government demands.

People of all ideologies rail against The Government as if it is a faceless bureaucracy operated by mindless minions who serve rules and red tape. The reality is, we are made up of people who are enforcing and implementing the very laws that Americans have asked for through their elected officials, from the Iraq war to the Affordable Care Act.

We have rules and processes, because not only are we America’s largest employer, but we have to provide a level of accountability and transparency to the American public that is unheard of in the private sector. And yes, of course there are people and offices that are deadweight and drag us all down. But only an ideologue would ignore the political interests behind most of our poor policy choices, or try to pretend that the private sector doesn’t struggle with poor performers.

Can you imagine if, on a whim, a private company’s board told employees not to show up? And then if that company told its employees they wouldn’t get paid because they weren’t working? Who in the world would want to work there? How would they ever recruit and retain top talent to stay at the top of their field? I cannot imagine having a family and this kind of pay uncertainty, and I cannot believe that Congressional Republicans would so easily throw us under the bus. And yet, here we are.

I am tired of being told that “Washington is broken.”  It can always be better, but Washington is not broken. Congress is broken, and it won’t get better until Americans hold their elected officials accountable. But between gerrymandering and the current campaign finance situation, I’m losing hope.

What A Shutdown Costs

A rough estimate:

In a research note Tuesday, J.P. Morgan analysts estimated that federal furloughs will reduce national income by a total of $1.3 billion per week. As a result, the shutdown could shave 0.12 percent off fourth quarter GDP growth for each week it goes on. That forecast doesn’t account for any knock-on effects on the private sector or dent in economic confidence, which are harder to quantify.

All that lost income could be recouped if Congress later agrees to give those 770,000 furloughed federal workers back pay. But for now, that’s very much uncertain. Republicans in Congress are split on whether to agree to retroactive pay to workers who get furloughed.

The View From Your Shutdown

A reader writes:

I am a big fan of the Dish, but I have never emailed you about a post until I read this one.  Not only are countless vacations being ruined by Congress, but countless small businesses in tourist towns are suffering as a result of the ridiculous actions of these Tea Party politicians.

I own and operate several hotels in Gettysburg, PA.

In July we celebrated the 150th anniversary of the pivotal Battle of Gettysburg, and in November we will be celebrating the 150th anniversary of the Gettysburg Address.  Needless to say, we have had a very busy year, as more tourists than ever have been flocking to Gettysburg to stay, shop, eat, and visit the battlefield attractions.

Well, since yesterday the Gettysburg Military Park and Visitors’ Center has been closed.  As a result we have already had a few cancellations from regular customers, a school group who was spending a night with us on their way to DC has postponed their visit, and we are facing the cancellation of a military group that was renting out a third of our rooms for a three night stay next week.  I cannot blame these groups for canceling their visit, but I do blame these House Republicans for shutting down our government and costing the merchants and town of Gettysburg thousands of dollars a day in tourist revenue.  The House Republicans are hurting many small businesses in towns like Gettysburg across the country, and they deserve nothing but the scorn of the American people.

The Real Star Of The Shutdown

9785650044_eb17e5e4bd_c

This adorable fuzzball, of course. Why did the plight of the Panda Cam receive so much attention these last few days? Megan Garber suggests it all comes down to office politics: 

When it comes to actually talking about the news – one of the big motivators for news consumption in the first place – coworkers tend to shy away from politically tendentious topics. Which is understandable: The workplace tends to collect people who might otherwise have little in common into close quarters. Why rock the boat? But it’s also a tendency that has significant implications for the kind of news consumption – and news sharing – that people actually do at and from work. The desire to avoid political confrontation, as [communications researcher Pablo] Bocszkowskiput it, “tends to steer people away from the consumption of politically sensitive topics, and move them towards consumption of sports stories, stories celebrity stories — topics that are more innocuous, and lighter in terms of workplace conversations.”

But the need to publicly appear politically neutral also explains the mass appeal of polarizing talk shows:

Discussing politics with your colleagues or neighbors comes with the fear of saying something unacceptable, and subsequently being excluded from the next barbecue or water-cooler conversation. In contrast, “the comfort zones provided by the shows we studied present no such risk,” [sociologist Sarah] Sobieraj and her colleagues write. “In fact, they offer imagined and, in some cases, tangible social connections.”

But why is their pull apparently stronger among conservatives, who gravitate to such programming in much greater numbers than liberals? Based on their interviews, the researchers believe the answer lies in the fact those on the right have more to fear in terms of social condemnation for their views.

(Photo: The giant panda cub born at the Smithsonian’s National Zoo August 23 was given a clean bill of health following her first veterinary exam September 16. By Courtney Janney, Smithsonian National Zoological Park)

“Hostage Taking 101”

Torture cheerleader Marc Thiessen gave a lesson on it earlier this week:

I’m all for taking hostages. Both sides do it all the time. But one of the first things they teach you in Hostage Taking 101 is that you have to choose a hostage the other side cares about saving. Obama and the Democrats don’t care about stopping a government shutdown. … By contrast, when it comes to the debt-limit showdown, they do have leverage; while Obama can let the government close and blame the GOP, he cannot allow the United States to default.

Galupo rightly calls Thiessen a thug. Chait worries that Republicans buy their own spin:

Conservative discourse on the debt ceiling is a chorus of cheering belligerence. I’ve seen no conservatives consider the possibility that Democrats actually believe their stated position, which is that giving in to debt-ceiling extortion would pave the way for endless future extortion and an eventual debt breach. They assert over and over that Democrats will fold, and seem to believe this.

Yglesias urges the president to hold firm:

[F]rom the standpoint of the country as a whole, a debt ceiling breach in 2013 is no more disastrous than a breach in 2017 or 2022. And the problem with “cutting a deal” with Republicans is that it essentially makes an eventual breach inevitable. If the hostage-taking gambit works, then it will be used over and over again until it goes wrong.

And Kilgore hopes Obama will pass a message on to Boehner:

Now I don’t know anything about the president’s relationship with Boehner. But it’s becoming a matter of national security for him to find some way to take him aside, maybe give the Speaker a cigarette from his secret stash, and say: “I will see you in Hell before I negotiate over the debt limit. And if you let a default happen, I will devote the rest of my presidency to making sure you, personally, bear the blame, and go down in history with our most despised traitors and criminals. For generations, little school children in Ohio will cross themselves and make hex signs when your name is mentioned. So do not, do not, go back and tell your crazy people they can win if they just stick together.”

The Republican Rift, Ctd

Dickerson delves more into the GOP’s divisions:

In most epic battles with a Democratic president, Republicans would swallow their own internal differences and close ranks against their common foe. But that’s not the case in this showdown: Many Republicans are personally invested in their previous argument that the party was headed toward ruin if it shut down the government over Obamacare. Put it this way: If Republicans emerge victorious from this struggle, McCain will have to admit Sen. Ted Cruz was right.

Jonathan Cohn emphasizes the Democrats’ unity:

That [unity] reflects effective leadership, for sure. But it also reflects something else: a shared sense of disdain and outrage over what the Republicans are doing. So add this to the list of ironies about the shutdown: By pushing so hard, Republicans have offended all Democrats, from both houses and both ends of the ideological spectrum. Republicans, in other words, have made their own job even harder.

Earlier Dish on Republican disunity here.

Where’s Boehner’s Backbone?

Boehner, House Leaders Speak To Press After Republican Conference Meeting

A reader writes:

Why is there not more coverage of the Hastert Rule? The speaker chooses to be bound by this rule – which explicitly makes compromise unwelcome – when a full majority of the House would be happy to pass the clean CR and move on. Boehner could lift the Hastert Rule and move the CR to the floor, where Democrats and many members of his own party would pass it.  If he were challenged as Speaker, he could conceivably extract support from the Democrats – especially Democrats in safe districts – to support him against a Republican challenge as Speaker.  Surely the Democrats would rather have Boehner than someone to his right?  The Speaker is elected by the full House!

But Boehner lacks creativity and is trapped in a cage made from his own cowardice.

Another scenario from a reader:

What if John Boehner were a man of principle – well, let’s pretend – and when it came time to raise the debt ceiling and his very right-wing party members refused, he does the truly unexpected. Instead of giving up on the Hastert rule and having to have Democrats come to his rescue, fueling more right-wing scorn, what if he resigned?

That would allow the extreme right wing Tea Partiers to take the blame for the ramifications – whatever they might be – of not raising the debt ceiling. Who would they point their fingers at then?  I’m assuming, of course, that there would be considerable fallout to going over the cliff, but most every reasonable person I have read expects some kind of negative impact on the economy. This might lance the boil that has infected the Republican Party for too long.

If he is so afraid that he won’t be re-elected Speaker that he is giving into demands that he knows are wrong – not just bad politics, but plain wrong – it might be the only way he could regain any sense of being a man with a conscience.

From that Costa interview we linked to earlier:

EK: This may be a bit of an odd question, but why does Boehner want to do his job like this under these circumstances? From the outside, it seems like a miserable existence. 

RC: I think John Boehner is frustrated by leading the Republicans in the House but I think he very much loves being speaker. To understand him you have to understand that. He gets to the Capitol early. He relishes the job and the position but he doesn’t relish being at odds so often with his members. He loves being a major American political figure, but he’s not a Newt Gingrich-like figure trying to lead the party in a certain direction. He’s just trying to survive and enjoy it while it lasts.

(Photo from Getty)

When Will The Republican Fever Break?

Steinglass isn’t holding his breath:

There is no equivalent on the moderate-Republican side to the organisational muscle and rhetorical elan that propels the party’s tea-party wing. No one is lining up to back moderate primary challengers to tea-party candidates. Establishment figures from previous Republican administrations who have found themselves transformed into voices of caution and moderation, such as Mr Gerson, most of the writers at National Review Online, and even (mutatis mutandi) Karl Rove, appear to have little ability to affect the party’s course anymore.

Waldman’s view:

Their fever will never break. Never.

The only thing that will give it a temporary respite is if a Republican becomes president, at which time they’ll decide that crises aren’t such a great tool after all. Their nihilistic rage will be put away, behind a glass door with the words “Break in case of Democratic president” written on it. And then it will start all over again

Drum wonders how we arrived at this state of affairs:

There’s always been a faction of right-wing craziness in America. It’s part of our DNA. But how did it become so widespread? The usual answer involves the rise of conservative think tanks, conservative talk radio, Fox News, the Christian right, and racial resentment toward a black president. And maybe that’s it. Somehow, though, it doesn’t feel quite sufficient. But if it’s not, then what’s going on? What’s happened over the past decade or two to spin up so many Americans into a blind rage?

Complaining about tea party congressmen misses the big picture. The problem is the people who voted them into office. What happened to them?

Is The Shutdown Racist?

Mitt Romney Attends Tea Party Rally In New Hampshire

Joan Walsh nods:

On the day the Affordable Care Act takes effect, the U.S. government is shut down, and it may be permanently broken. You’ll read lots of explanations for the dysfunction, but the simple truth is this: It’s the culmination of 50 years of evolving yet consistent Republican strategy to depict government as the enemy, an oppressor that works primarily as the protector of and provider for African-Americans, to the detriment of everyone else. The fact that everything came apart under our first African-American president wasn’t an accident, it was probably inevitable.

I’d say it came apart during the impeachment of Bill Clinton, the first sign of madness when the Democrats first truly wielded power after the Southern Strategy bore fruit under Reagan. Remember that Clinton was from the beginning regarded as illegitimate because he didn’t get more than 43 percent of the vote. Let us recall Bob Dole’s words after Clinton’s 1992 clear electoral college victory:

There isn’t any Clinton mandate. Fifty-seven percent didn’t vote for him. I’ll represent the 57 percent.

Or Tommy Thompson with an equally surreal view of the Constitution:

Only 43 percent of the people voted for Bill Clinton — that is not much of a mandate. . . . Republicans won nine legislative houses across the country. . . . Republicans have just as much of a mandate as the Democrats.

When you compare this with the Republican view of the 2000 election when George W Bush lost the popular vote and, undeterred by any sense of restraint, doubled down on massive unfunded tax cuts and pre-emptive wars along with budget-busting new entitlements, you get a better sense of who feels entitled to rule in this country, and who is routinely regarded as “illegitimate.”

Now, of course, this merely suggests that it is simply being Democrats that render the last two Democratic presidents inherently illegitimate – since only one was African-American. But remember how Clinton was regarded as “the first black president” by many, including those on the left? Remember his early days fighting for civil rights in Arkansas? You think a white Southerner overturning the success of the Southern Strategy would be deemed acceptable to the Southern right which increasingly dominated the GOP?

Nonetheless, Charles C. W. Cooke rightly notes:

Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and George H. W. Bush, all of whom presided over fractious shutdowns, might find this insinuation rather perplexing. In the last 40 years, only President George W. Bush was spared such a conflict.

The one president whose legitimacy was actually in some actual doubt escaped the revolt entirely. Hmmm. Quod erat demonstrandum.

More to the point, the other shutdowns were not about demanding the repeal of an already-enacted, constitutionally-approved signature achievement of a re-elected president – only a few years after a massive financial crisis and during a global recession. They were bargaining positions in which both sides had something to offer and a compromise to reach. All the GOP has to offer this time is … shutting down the government. This is not negotiation; it’s blackmail. And blackmail after all the proper avenues for stopping, amending, delaying and reforming the health bill have been exhausted. I mean they repealed the bill 41 times already – proof positive that all constitutional means for opposition have been exhausted. That‘s what makes this different. It’s not about playing hard by the rules. It’s losing and throwing the board-game in the air and threatening the destruction of the US and global economy in consequence. It’s unbelievable.

But when I mention race, I should unpack my point. It’s not a simple one, and I do not mean to be glib or too casual in throwing that word around.

I’m talking about the difference between opposition to a president’s agenda and a belief that he is somehow an impostor, illegitimate, and a usurper for reasons that seem, in the end, to come down to racial and cultural panic.

Do I have to recount the endless accusations against Obama of such?  No president has been subjected to endless litigation of his birth certificate or his religious faith (as if the latter mattered anyway). No president has been heckled in a State of the Union address with the words “You lie!” as Obama was. There was no claim that George W Bush was illegitimate because he muscled through a huge Medicare expansion as he was destroying this country’s fiscal standing having lost the popular vote to Al Gore. The Democrats didn’t threaten to shut the government down to stop anything he did. And no Republican, facing a major economic crisis, has received zero votes from the opposition in his first year. Both Bushes and Reagan won considerable Democratic support for tax cuts and tax hikes in their early years. The opposition accepted the legitimacy of the election. That’s the difference.

But Clinton was nonetheless regarded as illegitimate despite being what in any other era would be called a moderate Republican. Ditto Obama, whose stimulus and healthcare law were well within conservative policy consensus only a decade ago. I supported both presidents as a moderate small-c conservative (until Clinton revealed himself as sadly lacking the character not to self-implode). So I have long been puzzled not by legitimate opposition to various policies but by the frenzy of it. Call it the education of an English conservative in the long tortured history of American pseudo-conservatism.

In the end, I could only explain the foam-flecked frenzy of opposition to Clinton and Obama by the sense that the Civil Rights Revolution of the 1960s was the defining event for a certain generation, that the backlash to it was seen as a restoration of the right people running the country (i.e. no minorities with real clout), and that Clinton’s and even more Obama’s victories meant this narrative was revealed as an illusion. This is compounded by racial and cultural panic – against gays, immigrants, Muslims, Latinos etc – and cemented by a moronic, literalist, utterly politicized version of Christianity. This mindset – what I have called the “fundamentalist psyche” – is what is fueling the rage. It’s what fueled the belief that Romney was on the verge of a landslide. It is inherently irrational. It knows somewhere deep down that it is headed for defeat. But it will take down as much of the country, economy and constitution as it can while doing so.

For this time, as they surely know, Reconstruction will not be on their terms. They have no agenda because the multi-racial, multi-cultural, moderate-right country they live in is a refutation of their core identity. So race and culture fuel this – perhaps not explicitly or even consciously for some, but surely powerfully for many. And we are reaching a perilous moment as their cultural marginalization intensifies and their political defeat nears. After that, the rage could become truly destabilizing, unless some kind of establishment Republican leadership can learn to lead again. America and the world need to batten down the hatches.

(Photo: A homemade bumper sticker is seen on the back of a car during a Tea Party rally on September 4, 2011 in Concord, New Hampshire. By Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)