fed shutdown ?

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Yep, and the presumed difference between the GOP and the Dems ($30 - 40 Billion) would be spent in ~5 days of normal government operations (at $7 billion per day) anyway.

I say again, it's not about the money. It's about the policy riders:
http://www.ombwatch.org/files/budget...icy_Riders.pdf

That's right. Has nothing to do with saving us any money---It's all a political grudge f**k. Can't let the black guy with the big ears have anything, no matter how big, or how small.

Dave

[piece-itpete]

Why does it cost extra?

Pete

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Why does it cost extra?

Pete

Mostly because of stop-work orders issued to Federal contractors. The government ends up having to ultimately pay delay and impact costs associated with these orders. If you're familar with government contracting, a stop work order is like manna from heaven (or a blank check, take your pick).

Also, for all previous shutdowns, Congress ends up passing a law to pay Federal employees for the furlough as it wasn't their fault (and Congress wants to buy their votes back).

Together, shutdowns cost considerably more than staying open.

[piece-itpete]

Ah so. Counter-intuitive. Thanks.

Pete

[finnbow]

"Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said Thursday morning that the talks on a fiscal 2011 budget deal foundered over two Republican policy provisions on abortion and the environment and that the negotiators largely agreed to an amount of spending cuts."

For the record, here are the only two policy riders on abortion:

Prohibits the District of Columbia from using its own, non-federal funds to pay for abortions beyond the very limited circumstances in which federal funds are currently available

Prohibits funding for the US Ambassador's Fund for Cultural Preservation, UN Population Fund, or for foreign NGOs that use their own non-U.S. funds to provide abortion services.

As for environment, it could be any of these:

Prohibits funding for the Wetlands Reserve Program.
Prohibits funding for the Conservation Stewardship Program.
Prohibits funding for the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act.
Prohibits funding for the Weatherization Assistance Program or the State Energy Program.
Prohibits funding for various environmental projects in California.
Prohibits funding for a climate change czar in the White House.
Prohibits funding for EPA efforts to regulate greenhouse gases.
Prohibits funding for the EPA to change a rule regulating water.
Prohibits funding for enforcing an order by the Secretary of the Interior calling for protecting public natural spaces.
Puts a moratorium, for the duration of the CR, on the payment of legal fees to citizens and groups who sue the government.
Prohibits funds to implement, administer or enforce the rule entitled “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry and Standards of Performance for Portland Cement Plants,” published by the Environmental Protection Agency on September 9, 2010, which limits the levels of mercury in cement.
Prohibits funds to the EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board to consider, review, reject remand or other invalidate any permit issued for Outer Continental Shelf sources located offshore of the States along the Arctic Coast.
Defines specifically what greenhouse gases are and prohibits the EPA from imposing regulations on those gasses emitted by a stationary source for seven months.
Prohibits funds to implement the Klamath (California) Dam Removal and Sedimentation Study, conducted by the US Bureau of Reclamation and the US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Prohibits funds to implement or enforce the Travel Management Rule, which would close roads and trails on National Forest System land.
Prohibits funds for the Department of the Interior’s Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) from moving forward with a proposed rule that would effectively eliminate the Stream Buffer Zone Rule, a rule that presently allows surface mining operations with qualified permits to work within 100 feet of a stream.
Prohibit EPA funding for enforcement of total maximum daily loads in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
Prohibits funds for the EPA to impose and enforce federally mandated numeric Florida water quality standards.
Prohibits funds from being used to construct ethanol blender pumps or ethanol storage facilities.
Prohibits funds to implement a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Climate Service, part of the President’s fiscal year 2012 budget request.
Prohibits the EPA, Corps of Engineers and the Office of Surface Mining from implementing coordination procedures that have served to extend and delay the review of coal mining permits.
Prohibits funds from being used to develop or approve a new limited access privilege program – “catch-shares” – for any fishery under the jurisdiction of the South Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, New England or Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council.
Prohibits funds for the study of the Missouri River projects.
Prohibits funds for the EPA to deny proposed and active mining permits under Section 404 (c) of the Clean Water Act, specifically to revoke retroactively a permit for the Spruce Mine in West Virginia.
Prohibits funds for the EPA to implement regulations to designate coal ash reside as hazardous waste.
Prohibits funds for EPA to modify the national primary ambient air quality standards applicable to coarse particulate matter (dust).

Stuff like this is the crux of the impasse, not money.

[merrylander]

The barbarians are at the gates.

[piece-itpete]

Hmm, I didn't see a prohibition for the EPA to regulate politicians' hot air. Maybe there's hope after all lol.

Pete

[merrylander]

Anyone for a nice house sitting on 4,5 acres, I think we should move to Canada. I understand how the seperation of powers was supposed to work, but it does not work. The Framers probably assumed an informed electorate that would elect intelligent people. They are likely spinning in their graves at what is going on today. I'm sure that collection of tea bagging cretins is not what they had in mind.

[JJIII]

Originally Posted by merrylander

I understand how the seperation of powers was supposed to work, but it does not work. The Framers probably assumed an informed electorate that would elect intelligent people. They are likely spinning in their graves at what is going on today.

Now here is something I can wholly agree with!

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Stuff like this is the crux of the impasse, not money.

If we do what we need to do to rightsize our Federal spending, you can't do it without someone's ox getting gored. So, it is about the money, but you can't remove politics from a Federal budget discussion.

I'd love to leave the whole thing to a CPA firm:

- make the various agencies that spend the money make the case for their funding based on ROI, and submit their reports to the CPA firm
- let the CPA firm score the reports, and the lowest scoring agencies/programs get whacked.
- do this every year, and within 5 years, I'll bet that we'd start to see a government that was cost effective and effective.