October 02, 2013
— Open Blogger [BUMPED 10/2 -- GM.]
Allow me to introduce myself: I’m a federal civilian employed by the Department of Defense here in Washington, D.C. In my personal life, I consider myself a small-government conservative with a strong libertarian streak—essentially, your stereotypical Tea Partier.
And IÂ’ve just been furloughed, thanks to the shutdown.
(Long post to follow... yes, longer even than Ace's movie reviews...) After a long shutdown-enabled day of Grand Theft Auto V, beer, and scratching myself-- I had to pass on the ping pong balls, ever since that "incident" in Thailand-- Ace has graciously allowed me to post my thoughts on the shutdown, given my fairly atypical perspective: a big government employee who happily hates big government.
Before I begin, there are a few items that I’d like to get out of the way, in order to establish some “ground rules.”
First, IÂ’m writing in a personal capacity, i.e. all statements to follow are either facts as I understand them, or my personal opinions, but nothing represents the official views of the Department of Defense, or any other government agency.
Second, full disclosure: I am a “non-essential” employee.
Now, every time there’s a weather, sequester or shutdown-related furlough, some of my friends on the Right inevitably snark, “If they’re non-essential, why don’t we just fire them all?” Alas, contrary to the (well-intentioned!) snark seen across the blogosphere of the Right, “non-essential” is NOT synonymous with “unnecessary.”
To explain, here’s an analogy: when a naval vessel is in port, there is a skeleton crew that mans the ship. These personnel—let’s call them “essential”—ensure that their ship doesn’t rust, doesn’t sink, and doesn’t get sabotaged. They can’t sail the ship, however, nor can they enter battle. This band of few, of happy few, are far removed from the full complement required to fight the ship.
On paper, that’s the difference between the government’s definition of “essential” versus “non-essential” employees. Essential employees can keep the government running, but they can’t run the government *well*. The non-essential employees are required to run the government at full effectiveness.
Again, on paper.
In practice, of course, I am the first to acknowledge that not all federal employees—or even agencies, for that matter—are required to run the government at full effectiveness. Quite the opposite, in fact—the federal government, in 2013, is a hidebound Gulliver tethered in the bondage of the countless rules and regulations of our Lilliputian bureaucracy.
An axiom I’ve long subscribed to is that a government tasked to do everything is a government that can do nothing well; “big government” is demonstrably incapable of being effective government. Hence, my desire for a smaller government, focused on its core Constitutional duties, that exchanges the gargantuan federal bureaucracy for a more competent and effective limited government. Like many of you, I’m certain that the federal government can get along just fine with far fewer people, essential or otherwise. That’s a fight and a blog post, however, for another day.
For the purposes of this post, let’s accept that at least some percentage of “non-essential” employees are indeed still required to run the government at the level of effectiveness desired by the overwhelming majority of Americans, regardless of ideology.
My Perspective
That out of the way, why am *I* considered non-essential?
I work in a pretty small office, only six people. As recently as two years ago, there were *ten* people working in my office, but through attrition and re-assignment, itÂ’s been reduced to five, without replacement, all thanks to Sequestration.
To be honest, ten people to do our work was too many, and I canÂ’t say I miss them all. Especially that one guy who smelled like ham.
Six people, however, makes things pretty tight. One person goes TDY, one person gets sick, heck one person goes on leave, and things start to slip, and slip hard. I work (unpaid) overtime and (unpaid) weekends, I routinely cancel leave, I do what needs to be done in order to get the mission accomplished.
IÂ’m not stating this for sympathy, just sharing for understanding.
Thanks to the shutdown, my office of six people is down to two-- two people to do the work of six, work that just recently was done by ten. As a result of the shutdown, things just arenÂ’t going to get done, or if done, done poorly.
Why arenÂ’t things going to get done? Well, because the "non-essential" people sent home today still have unique skills. For instance, I am literally the single point of failure within the entire Department for a number of issues. Serious issues, stuff you would all assume our government should be paying attention to, 24/7/365. Out of hundreds of thousands of people, I am literally the only person who knows what I know, and who does what I do.
As a small-government conservative, and a humble (HA!) realist, I know the world will go on just fine without me for several days, perhaps even weeks. However, even as a small-government conservative, I canÂ’t argue in good faith that what I do *shouldnÂ’t* be done, ever.
Again, for a short period of time, the people remaining in my office can keep doing the work. The world will still turn, the Republic will survive, and babies will still sleep soundly in their cribs. But in time, atrophy and entropy will set in, and the government Americans, both Right and Left, demand will inevitably begin to fail to accomplish even the minimal goals we set for it.
ThatÂ’s bad.
We should all agree that shutdowns, whatever their reason, whatever their politics, are a bad way to run our government.
What To Do About It?
Why is the shutdown bad? Let me talk instead about the Sequester for a moment.
The federal government is too large. It does too much that shouldn’t be done by the federal government—or, any government, at any level. And it does much of what it does poorly. Oh, and yeah, we can’t afford it, not at the price of more ruinous debt. For these reasons I strongly believe the federal government should be reduced in size and scope. I'm sure that here at the HQ, most of you accept these contentions at face value.
That all said, the Sequester remains one of the dumbest ways yet invented by man of achieving these ends.
For one, it’s not big enough-- the Sequester cuts are too small. But even for being too small, they’re too clumsy—across-the-board cuts each fiscal year, do not pass go, do not allow for wise decision-making; not in your household, not in the government.
After a decade of ginormous wartime growth, our defense budget can be cut. Oh, how can it ever! But it was always dumb, and remains dumb, to do it the way Sequester does it.
What would I suggest instead?
First, if you gave me ten minutes and the authority to fire federal civilians, IÂ’d find you all the money you need, with five minutes to spare. ;-)
Unfortunately, firing a federal civilian is, for all intents and purposes, an impossible task, in large part because itÂ’s prevented by the unions (of which I am NOT a member, nor are many federal civilians, contrary to the stereotype).
Boy, sure would be nice to get Congress to reform civilian performance, eh? Oh, wait, we tried that, and we were told we couldnÂ’t do that.
Likewise, give me the authority to eliminate certain programs, and IÂ’ll find you money.
In this case, however, Congress routinely prevents this. Every program has a constituency, after all, and some members won’t rest until there’s a C-130J in every schoolyard in America, or an M-1 Abrams in every garage. No, far better to cut everything equally—and thus, ruin everything, equally—than enable agencies to make their own strategic choices. In this way, Congress abdicates the responsibility to cut programs-- and thus, jobs-- in their districts, preferring instead to let Sequester do their dirty work.
Lastly, give me the authority to reform our entitlement systems, and IÂ’ll find you money. Who's up for grabbing THAT third rail with me?
A popular, and astute, observation on the Right is that the United States of America in 2013 is a pension plan with an Army.
The sad corollary to that joke is that the *Army itself* is now a pension plan with an Army—military personnel costs and benefits increasingly eat away at DoD discretionary spending with each passing year.
Now, I support the troops. YOU support the troops. WeÂ’re all agreed: we support the troops.
That out of the way, hereÂ’s the harsh truth: we canÂ’t afford to keep giving the troops, let alone civilians, the benefits weÂ’ve given them. The same promises Detroit gave its firefighters, the same promises California gives its teachers, these same promises were made to uniformed military and federal civilians alike. And they all share one thing in common: they're unsustainable, because we are out of money.
For my entire career, I’ve watched Congress after Congress approve pay raises, pension increases, TRICARE subsidies, and retention bonuses, all without question. It made obvious political sense; heck, it even made practical sense. Back when the economy was good—remember those days?—giving good perks ensured that the enlistments would follow. During wartime, of course, additional costs were incurred: hazard pay, re-enlistment bonuses, etc.
But I ask, why is the natural order of things to always increase these benefits, no questions asked? We didnÂ’t respect our military any less in the 1980s, before the 1990s benefits growth. Nor did we respect our military any less in the 1990s, before the 2000s benefits growth. America has had an all-volunteer military since before I was born. Why must our volunteer military be more expensive, adjusted for inflation, to operate it today, in 2013, than it was in 1973?
Arguing against this, however, is political suicide. ItÂ’s like Social Security: if you donÂ’t give out the COLA every year, you want to shove seniors over a cliffside. Conservatives wonÂ’t accept this false argument when applied to seniors; we shouldnÂ’t accept this argument when itÂ’s applied to government employees, i.e. our military.
Of course, I'm a realist: I accept that dismantling these entitlements will take time, perhaps even cost money in the short-run, and potentially be politically toxic. I accept that the price of reforming these entitlements-- just like reforms to the national entitlement system, such as those proposed by Paul Ryan-- will probably require liberal “grandfathering” of currently serving men and women, with adjustments coming to new officers and enlisted entering service. We should keep our promises, as many as possible, starting with our bravest men and women first in line. I get all that.
But this isnÂ’t sustainable. And worse, it isnÂ’t wise. Just as the nation as a whole is harmed when the overwhelming share of the federal budget is taken up by welfare state entitlements and debt payments, so is the capability of the United States armed forces when the defense budget is consumed by its own entitlement spending.
Now, thatÂ’s the men and women in uniform; what about federal civilians like me?
First, we should have Reductions in Force (RIFs). We've grown since 9/11, and fought two wars. Now, it's time to downsize. Early retirements and attrition will take care of some folks, but not enough. I bet these are coming, and the fight for and against them will be politically charged.
Now, if my job is eventually RIFÂ’ed out of existence, oh well, IÂ’ll just go do honest work somewhere else. But the cuts will need to come.
Second, more BRAC rounds are probably in order. Congress will bray like angry goats at the thought, but why spend money for things we donÂ’t need? (Oh, right, I forgot: because thatÂ’s what government does best).
Third, we must charge civilians more for their benefits.
Health care, obviously; I hate the “Affordable” Care Act like the rest of you, but I agree with the argument that if it’s good enough for America, it should be good enough for us. Once it’s obvious that it ISN’T good enough for us, then maybe we’ll be able to convince our political superiors the bad news, that ACA isn’t working. Few politicians listen to the American people; maybe they'll listen to the people fetching their coffee. Put me, and my co-workers, on the ACA, and make us suffer this law with the rest of the people we serve.
Pension reforms, definitely. Federal civilians get three retirement benefits under the Federal Employee Retirement System: Social Security, the Thrift Savings Plan, and the defined-benefit pension.
Social Security must be fixed nationally. Like many, IÂ’ll be shocked if itÂ’s there when I retire, *if* I ever retire, but thatÂ’s another fight.
The Thrift Savings Plan is a 401(k)-like plan that works very well, and appears to be self-sustainable from what IÂ’ve read. IÂ’m certain that, like far too many private sector 401(k) investors, not enough federal employees contribute enough to their TSP accounts; whatever can be done to increase incentives to invest there is obviously wise.
As for the defined-benefit pension, like many Americans, I donÂ’t expect to have a pension when I retire. Oh sure, Uncle Sam says IÂ’ll get it, but cÂ’mon: this canÂ’t possibly survive the next thirty years.
But I think it *could* survive, IF reforms were undertaken now. Namely, force federal civilians to contribute more to their pensions, as certain politicians are proposing Right now, many civilians contribute a measly one percent of our salary to a very generous pension system. If they changed the rules today to a more substantial three or even five percent of our salaries, the federal pension system could, perhaps, be made robust enough to weather the storm that is foundering so many state and local governments.
Much like Representative RyanÂ’s proposals for national entitlements, fixing most of these problems early is far less painful than waiting until later. And, in fact, fixing them early may be the ONLY way to fix them... if we can fix them at all. (I'll defer to Monty for the Vegas betting lines on that).
Instead, I fear weÂ’re going to do what weÂ’ve always done: ignore the problem until itÂ’s too late to affordably fix the problem. Which means that a sizable portion of my retirement portfolio will likely just disappear into the ether, poof, as if it never existed at all, because the leaders I serve failed to make the tough choices today. America will go the way of Detroit, all because people failed to listen, and failed to act.
Gee, thanks guys, way to have our backs.
The Politics of the Shutdown
IÂ’m not going to re-hash the fights here at the HQ. Between my friends Gabe and Drew, theyÂ’ve covered the bases well when it comes to political strategies and popular (or unpopular) choices.
Yet, given how the shutdown directly affects *me*, I will say this: if the shutdown doesnÂ’t accomplish anything enduring, then it was stupid to shut down the government. Just as Sequestration was stupid.
NONE of these actions alone save us enough money. NONE of these actions alone force the sound structural changes required to save us enough money. And lastly, at least by my lights, none of these actions alone posture the Right effectively for winning the long-term victories required to force those changes.
Make no mistake: conservatives are fighting a campaign, not a battle. We will lose battles. We will also have to choose to not fight certain battles in order to be better posture to win future ones.
I hate how we’ve lost so much so far. I hate how we haven’t had more success. I hate how we have plenty of tacticians on our side, but too few strategists. I hate how some Republicans—both in the RINO camp as well as the “true conservative” side—relish fighting each other more than they do the other side.
Now, the latter is to be expected, itÂ’s human nature. As Ace has written here many times, fights among friends are often the worst. Civil wars, etc. Ask any old Bolshevik whether he hated the Mensheviks more than running-dog capitalists and theyÂ’ll tell you the same old story: our friends suck.
But hereÂ’s the thing: I personally was ordered gave up my salary for a Sequestration that doesn't save enough money. And today, I was ordered home, ordered not to the job I've done for well over a decade, for a shutdown that almost certainly wonÂ’t stop the ACA.
I may be out of work a day, or a week, or a month—like everyone sent home today, I have no clue. Now, I’m not looking for sympathy; I make great money, I responsibly saved enough money to survive rainy days, and I recognize how fortunate I am that I *have* a job in this awful economy. But like all of you, I still have bills to pay, obligations to meet, and plans to accomplish.
Many people in the rest of the country, even my friends on the Right, donÂ’t truly appreciate how ridiculously expensive it has become to live in this area. I make well over six figures, but far too much of it is eaten up paying for 2-bedroom duplex, utilities, student loans (still!), groceries and keeping a car. Thanks a lot, Big Government, for making it so damn expensive to live here, with all your rent-seeking lobbyists, Beltway Bandits, and parasitic class.
But... I asked for this. Ever since I was a young boy, I wanted to work in national security. A dorky South Side Chicago kid weaned on Tom Clancy novels, Harpoon on his PC, and Advanced Third Reich laid out on a basement card table who knew at an early age that he wanted to work to keep his nation safe. And I knew that the only way to do that was to work for the federal government.
I chose to become a public servant, recognizing that while I may argue against Big Government, against the welfare state, against the Department of Education, national security is and always will be a core function of our nation's federal government. Meaning, even as a conservative champion of limited-government, I wanted a career where I could still sleep at night, still look at myself in the mirror in the morning.
And now, today, IÂ’m out of that job. All because politicians are making a gamble that may not even pay off.
I would be THRILLED to lose paychecks in return for delaying the ACA. IÂ’ll gladly pay that price, for I know it would save millions of my fellow citizens the money and headache of complying with a disastrous law. Take my job, please, and get rid of this abomination.
But who genuinely believes this will work? I fear that it won't. I fear that I, and many others, will have sacrificed pay—and not performed our jobs as public servants, serving each of you—in sacrifice for nothing much gained at all.
So, GOP? Conservatives? Sequester, shutdown, now that we're finally here, IÂ’ll support anything the team does, IÂ’ll pay any priceÂ… just win something already, okay?
Just frakkinÂ’ win, and make my sacrifice, and those of thousands of others, worthwhile.
---
Thank you again to Ace for allowing me to post my personal thoughts. Now, back to running over hobos in Los Santos... (Is that Trevor dude awesome, or what? He's totally an honorary moron...)
Posted by: Open Blogger at
04:01 AM
| Comments (329)
Post contains 3249 words, total size 21 kb.
Posted by: Truck Monkey, Gruntled New Business Owner at October 01, 2013 06:15 PM (jucos)
Posted by: Joethefatman™ (@joethefatman1) at October 01, 2013 06:17 PM (MnSla)
Posted by: John Smith at October 01, 2013 06:18 PM (wR+pz)
Our ship went into the yards for 8 months they turned me into a welder, I was a radar operator. Still productive.
You should try the private sector. BTW what are we paying you.
Posted by: redenzo at October 01, 2013 06:18 PM (vx61Q)
THIS is the answer to the shutdown! SERIOUSLY! Yeah - that's all CAPS!
OCCUPY PARKS!
An answer to the Occupy Wall Street douchers. We need to start coordinating people who are retired and travelling the country to BREAK DOWN BARRIERS TO PARKS. They need to be organized and en masse! And DARE the politicians and authorities to deny them entrance and enjoyment of OUR parks!
And Fuck you, Bevel!
Posted by: JDW at October 01, 2013 06:18 PM (UEoQu)
Posted by: eman at October 01, 2013 06:18 PM (AO9UG)
I am calling in support tomorrow. Finally, some find their spines again, even if it is a dog and pony show.
Let them blame the Republicans. For heaven's sake, the bipartisan constipation known as Congress under Baroque...where things like "budgets" are beneath him (it is already pretty crowded with iReggie).
Posted by: ChristyBlinky,Raging Lunatic about Benghazi at October 01, 2013 06:19 PM (baL2B)
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at October 01, 2013 06:19 PM (HDgX3)
Posted by: Counselor Legolas, who didn't read this yet at October 01, 2013 06:19 PM (FY+3+)
Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at October 01, 2013 06:20 PM (GEICT)
O. M. G. and, yes, I know people like this and, yes, the bitch constantly about it. srsly, I can't believe I even have unused ammo.
Posted by: Peaches at October 01, 2013 06:21 PM (8lmkt)
Posted by: ChristyBlinky,Raging Lunatic about Benghazi at October 01, 2013 06:21 PM (baL2B)
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at October 01, 2013 06:21 PM (AYOav)
Posted by: Islamic Rage Boy at October 01, 2013 06:21 PM (e8kgV)
I think more on the conservative side would have been open to arguments against this fight if there were any evidence at all that the Republican Party had a truly viable strategy for getting rid of Obamacare, and could mount a cogent argument that this was not the way to do it because it would interfere with that wise plan for winning.
But if there is such a thing, it's sure being kept quiet. Meanwhile, there seems to be plenty of evidence for a contrary hypothesis, that the party seems content to just keep taking our votes, going along with Obamacare and the rest of the status quo, and hoping we'll shut up.
If that latter hypothesis is correct, better any fight against this socialist monstrosity, than no fight at all. At least we will have stood up against evil.
Posted by: Splunge at October 01, 2013 06:21 PM (bKA83)
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at October 01, 2013 06:22 PM (AYOav)
This was a great post. As a fellow DoD employee, it mirrors my thoughts pretty much exactly.
Posted by: AndrewR at October 01, 2013 06:22 PM (QOgkc)
Posted by: AltonJackson at October 01, 2013 06:23 PM (JMmQ9)
Posted by: Truck Monkey, Gruntled New Business Owner at October 01, 2013 06:23 PM (jucos)
Posted by: eman at October 01, 2013 06:23 PM (AO9UG)
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at October 01, 2013 06:23 PM (HDgX3)
On my FFG, we went from 4 duty sections to 7...which left us so minimally manned that I often wound up being the Duty Ops, Duty Gunner's Mate, Duty Combat Systems, Duty MAA, and the entire Security Alert Team and Backup Alert Force for my duty section...and also pulling two four hour shifts as Officer of the Deck on my duty day.
Posted by: Country Singer at October 01, 2013 06:24 PM (T7XIT)
Posted by: Paul Zummo at October 01, 2013 06:24 PM (caPl0)
Posted by: CDR M at October 01, 2013 06:24 PM (OJvfL)
FUCK YOU!
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at October 01, 2013 10:19 PM (HDgX3)
------------
^^ This ^^. I also have family members that retired early from govt jobs. Sorry, but I have no sympathy at all for anyone being furloughed.....or better yet terminated. It's during those times that you fall back on family members that are actually making a real contribution to the economy in private sector jobs.
In other words - go get a real fucking job and struggle like the rest of us private sector pukes.
Posted by: Not an Artist at October 01, 2013 06:25 PM (uRumV)
it is with the bosses, the careerists, the appointees, the under-secretaries-to-the-directors, the political hacks, the lobbyists, the professional schmoozers, the Congressman and Senators with their armies of aides and underlings and fixers.
My argument is with the United States Government itself, which has become a monster, a landlord, an overseer, a tyrant, and which eats out my sustenance and tramples my freedoms.
Shut it down.
Posted by: Jones in CO at October 01, 2013 06:25 PM (8sCoq)
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at October 01, 2013 06:25 PM (HDgX3)
Posted by: John Smith at October 01, 2013 06:26 PM (wR+pz)
Posted by: JackStraw at October 01, 2013 06:26 PM (g1DWB)
Posted by: eman at October 01, 2013 06:27 PM (AO9UG)
My argument is with the United States Government itself, which has become a monster, a landlord, an overseer, a tyrant, and which eats out my sustenance and tramples my freedoms.
Shut it down.
Posted by: Jones in CO at October 01, 2013 10:25 PM (8sCoq)
shut it down, burn it down, take a fuckin' machete to it. we need this boot off our neck and, sadly, I don't think that will ever happen. and we are paying for that boot, at vastly inflated prices. the fuckin' chicoms must be rofl at this tawdry debacle.
Posted by: Peaches at October 01, 2013 06:27 PM (8lmkt)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at October 01, 2013 06:27 PM (5NB5t)
............
Granted. But there is NO wise decision making in our government. The ONLY way you can cut is indiscriminately.
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at October 01, 2013 06:29 PM (AYOav)
Posted by: T. at October 01, 2013 06:31 PM (JBLt6)
Posted by: traye at October 01, 2013 06:31 PM (HK9R/)
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at October 01, 2013 06:31 PM (HDgX3)
We all expect our pension contributions to go up. What I hope is that it goes up all at once, and fixes the problem. Instead, I bet that it'll be like the Post Office-- like the price of stamps, our pension contributions will go up just enough to *pretend* it's being fixed, but never enough to actually fix things.
Again, I'm not counting on the pension being there when (or if) I ever retire. That's why my TSP is maxed out, I have my own investment account, and I save money every paycheck.
Oh, and I hoard gold. And platinum. And Dutch bearer bonds. And shiny plutonium.
Posted by: Dave at Garfield Ridge at October 01, 2013 06:33 PM (/FnUH)
Posted by: PAgirlinNC at October 01, 2013 06:33 PM (8N4pA)
Posted by: eman at October 01, 2013 06:33 PM (AO9UG)
Posted by: CDR M at October 01, 2013 06:33 PM (OJvfL)
Posted by: traye at October 01, 2013 06:33 PM (HK9R/)
Posted by: RED at October 01, 2013 06:34 PM (mIQTq)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at October 01, 2013 06:34 PM (5NB5t)
Posted by: Daybrother at October 01, 2013 06:34 PM (zBiIg)
Posted by: AndrewsDad at October 01, 2013 06:35 PM (7Dbui)
Your tax dollars at work.
Posted by: Country Singer at October 01, 2013 06:35 PM (T7XIT)
Secondly, it is impossible to judge the value of the work being done without knowing what that work is. Every single government employee can cut an paste this justification of the work being done and no once can counter this justification without knowing what that work is.
Every government employee is essential
http://preview.tinyurl.com/qxhmbzq
Posted by: Moralist unbound at October 01, 2013 06:36 PM (lblyG)
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith [/i] [/b] [/s] [/u] at October 01, 2013 06:36 PM (qyfb5)
I don't mean to be unsympathetic, but do you know what I contribute to my retirement funds? 100% I'll be lucky if my retirement scheme isn't a mutherfuckin' shopping cart and I'm 62 now and will likely die working.
Posted by: Peaches at October 01, 2013 06:36 PM (8lmkt)
I forget who I was talking to the other day, but I asked this -- Tell me one part of your life the government is not a part of?
Dishwasher, light bulbs, food, fuel, housing, clothing, electronics, car, medical, toilet, shower head, cigarettes, alchohol, and the list goes on and on and on.
Name one thing, besides the sun and moon or whether.
Posted by: Infidel at October 01, 2013 06:36 PM (gqEUi)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at October 01, 2013 06:37 PM (5NB5t)
See? A layoff gave you time for something useful!
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at October 01, 2013 06:37 PM (AYOav)
Posted by: eman at October 01, 2013 06:38 PM (AO9UG)
Posted by: T. at October 01, 2013 06:38 PM (JBLt6)
Posted by: Dudley Smith at October 01, 2013 06:38 PM (6T+1F)
Port and Starboard was standard for us underway, with 3 duty sections in non-USN ports.
Posted by: Country Singer at October 01, 2013 06:40 PM (T7XIT)
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith [/i] [/b] [/s] [/u] at October 01, 2013 06:41 PM (qyfb5)
Yes, most of us understand that we're talking about real people and real livelihoods that are damaged during events like these. And, yes, rhetoric ends up sounding like rhetoric, cant that is damaging in some ways to our stated goals.
At the same time, what ever critique we have with the Federal government need not be entirely yours to bear, defend, or even feel like the target of our pique.
Two points, not necessarily in opposition or critique of your post, but I feel need to be aired:
Government-related occupations will be affected politics. Always. This is the nature of our multi-trillion dollar bureaucratic empire that we call a government. Again, not a critique of your chosen profession, only a restatement of the fact that the shareholders in this enterprise do not the same corporate vision as of late.
We want a smaller Federal government for real, hard, practical reasons, not just theoretical or symbolic reasons.
The fewer things the Feds undertake or are permitted to undertake, it's undoubtedly true, there will be less political haymaking and greater success in the smaller portfolio.
Second, There will never be a perfect or pleasingly simple answer to shrinking the size and scope of the Behemoth before us. Elegance is for math, black-tie dinners, and classical music made before 1910. Not political retrenchment.
'War by another means' will never, ever be pretty. Our political reality has *already* hurt more than just those in the public sector.
And, more to the point, if things are not rectified in the short term, furloughs will come to be seen as quaint.
Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at October 01, 2013 06:41 PM (ligos)
Posted by: T. at October 01, 2013 06:43 PM (JBLt6)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at October 01, 2013 06:43 PM (5NB5t)
Posted by: Andy at October 01, 2013 06:46 PM (0ZQCB)
Posted by: Kirk at October 01, 2013 06:46 PM (FxIhI)
You hit the main point -- a system where no one can be fired coupled with rent-seeking bosses in Congress is what's driving the main issue.
When I was growing up, I thought Jefferson was a paranoid. Now I think I understand his point: government has too much power to channel cash and compel behavior, and thus cannot be allowed to grow any more than the absolute minimum.
And we have done the exact opposite.
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty at October 01, 2013 06:48 PM (VtbkC)
Posted by: Jeff E at October 01, 2013 06:49 PM (doTwC)
Jerking off?
Ah....Answering for a friend.
Posted by: Troll Feeder did not say that at October 01, 2013 06:53 PM (vMBFo)
Posted by: Daybrother at October 01, 2013 06:56 PM (ejN1U)
I could write a dozen, a hundred, a thousand concrete suggestions, but it's not my blog, I had but one post :-)
In the meantime, however, I recommend National Review, Reason, AEI, Heritage, Brookings (yes, even those pseudo-libs at Brookings) and many other places-- there are plenty of great reformist suggestions out there that I'll gladly champion.
But in sum, I'm acutely sensitive to the fact that there is a difference between a *smaller* government, a *more limited* government and a *more effective* government. I want all three: a government that is less expensive, limited in its authority, and more effective in exercising the limited authority it possesses. Few here, after all, would want the *current* big government to be more effective in robbing us of our liberty.
That's not easy to achieve, I agree with that.
Posted by: Dave at Garfield Ridge at October 01, 2013 07:00 PM (/FnUH)
Posted by: traye at October 01, 2013 07:01 PM (HK9R/)
Posted by: DCPensFan at October 01, 2013 07:01 PM (zIe0x)
Posted by: Rex the Wonder God at October 01, 2013 07:01 PM (w45V0)
But fuck you. I am going to say thanks, whether you want it or not.
Thank You!
Posted by: Bob, Henchman at Large at October 01, 2013 07:02 PM (1efte)
So, yes, you are "sacrificing" now, but will get it all back!
Anyway, as to your point about "What is it for?" Unfortunately, it is probably for nothing, as the Boehner and the Republicans will probably give in. But, realistically, constitutionally, isn't that what the party in the "minority" is supposed to do, are they not supposed to use every tool in their arsenal to stop the opposition when they disagree? Several writers on several different websites today have made excellent arguments that the House is doing exactly what it should be doing, stopping, or at least, delaying Obama and the liberals from implementing their every whim, which would be at the expense of the American people, for their supposed glorious vision. (Okay that doesn't read like it should the "glorious vision" is that of the liberals, which the House is standing against (well, in theory anyway!),),
So, sorry your paycheck might be delayed (at least you were smart enough to put something away for a rainy day!) but, you will eventually, receive all of it (with the exception of the "sequester" part) but, way too many Americans will never receive back what they have lost under the wonderful economy of this "glorious" president, for me to cry too much about your "delayed" paycheck!
Posted by: chefwes at October 01, 2013 07:04 PM (nsB4u)
I wish for much the same outcome, but the one thing you most wish for is simply not possible -- a guarantee. How many folk here have railed against the clean energy bets the gubmint is making 'in our behalf'; hell, if I was in charge I doubt that I would allow the funding of a single one. Yet here we are, still having wagers placed with our money. You want some assurance that the shutdown will accomplish something? It doesn't exist. A stand had to be made somewhere, and here we are. I'm as curious as you as to how it all turns out.
As to the sequester, recall that it was TFG's idea in the first place. Sure, it's a zero tolerance type solution and those solutions are also regularly derided here. But it came down to that being the only thing left on the table as far as cuts.
Finally, thanks for what you do and your dedication to our country. Ignore the hotheads here that call all gubmint employees 'leaches'; a lot of us know better. We hate what we see going on and strike out too blindly and broadly at times.
Posted by: GnuBreed at October 01, 2013 07:07 PM (wNF3N)
As far as the shutdown, you can not negotiate with an adversary if you unilaterally disarm. If the Rs tell the Ds, we promise we will not let a shutdown occur, then what is the incentive for the Ds to negotiate in good faith?
Of course, the current R leadership are all just going through what motions they think they have to before caving. The unconscionable part of the equation is not the shutdown, but the poor excuses of trough-feeding leaders who are playing games instead of actually representing their constituents.
Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at October 01, 2013 07:10 PM (IN7k+)
None taken! I'll be the first to admit that it's hard to be a self-hating government employee, but I do my best :-).
Again, I was careful to insist in my post that I wasn't looking for sympathy, but understanding. Working out in this private sector, out in places far removed from the Beltway Boomtown Pork Capital U.S.A., no one should have sympathy for government employees, certainly not *as a class*.
I have family out of work in this economy, family I've financially supported once the unemployment's run out. I have loved ones who've had hours cut back at work in order to deal with Obamacare. I have friends who work *three* jobs in order to make ends meet.
I know how hard it is out there. I live and work in D.C., but I don't *stay* here, I travel across the country, I see folks, I know how terrible this has been. Thus, the imperative to change things for the better.
I am thankful to have a job that I love that pays me very well, and I thank each and every one of you for the tax dollars that pay my salary. I do believe in public *service*.
I wish everyone in government did.
Posted by: Dave at Garfield Ridge at October 01, 2013 07:10 PM (/FnUH)
Yeah, you Frigate guys get bent over.
Everyone's pretty much back to 4 section duty again now.
Posted by: Buck Farack at October 01, 2013 07:12 PM (ylG8S)
Posted by: Blake at October 01, 2013 07:14 PM (QNnGv)
THE END IS NEAR!!
The quatrain reads thus:
When the Cold cuts awake
And Garfield Ridge shakes
Then Steve in HB and Not Steve In HB shall spake
Then the four morons of the apocalypse shall destroy Barky's realm.
Posted by: Nostrodumbass at October 01, 2013 07:15 PM (/xoS3)
So, yes, you are "sacrificing" now, but will get it all back!"
Oops, forgot to note this... I personally am skeptical that we *will* be paid back for the shutdown.
Yes, in shutdowns past, furloughed employees were reimbursed.
But I expect that given the mood in Congress, particularly among the GOP, this time will be different. In fact, they may just look at this as a "bonus Sequester" and take the savings and run. I won't blame them for doing so, but again, it's something we've got to plan for. No guarantees, etc.
Oh well. As many of you have noted, millions of Americans are out of work right now, with no hope at all of getting "back pay." Again, I shared for understanding, not sympathy.
Posted by: Dave at Garfield Ridge at October 01, 2013 07:16 PM (/FnUH)
Posted by: Mrs. Peel at October 01, 2013 07:18 PM (1EtXn)
But, still we "have" to fight some battles, sometime, somewhere, or we might as well just disband the Republican party, now!
The small battles we fight now, could wind up being HUGE in the elections, as Obamacare comes into fruition and people see how this debacle was forced upon us by the "you have to pass it to read it" crowd of Nancy, Harry and the Dems!
Posted by: chefwes at October 01, 2013 07:20 PM (nsB4u)
Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at October 01, 2013 07:22 PM (ligos)
Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at October 01, 2013 07:22 PM (ligos)
Stop there. :-)
That's my point: the Sequester is dumb, period. The *reason* for it, however, is understandable-- our political process is broken, perhaps beyond repair.
It wasn't always this way, not even in recent memory-- when I began my career in the mid-1990s, Congress managed to pass annual budget resolutions and annual appropriations bills by the start of the fiscal year, or very shortly thereafter. Continuing Resolutions, when they occurred, lasted days, not weeks... let alone months.
What man can build, man can destroy... or change. Perhaps I am a fool for believing that we can return to a period of time where reform was possible, but I'm not asking for a return to Coolidge-era America-- I'm asking for a return to something as radically normal as *Clinton-era America*.
Posted by: Dave at Garfield Ridge at October 01, 2013 07:23 PM (/FnUH)
I agree. But at the risk of intruding into Gabe vs. Drew territory, I'd have greater confidence in the shutdown's potential for contributing to larger success if the GOP had a coherent strategy for the next few weeks, and months. I don't quite see that it does.
Instead, this shutdown feels like a case of, "The situation is really bad, nothing seems to change... maybe if we press this red button, something will happen!"
It's creative destruction. Sometimes, it's creative; other times, it's just destructive. We'll all see together how this time turns out!
Posted by: Dave at Garfield Ridge at October 01, 2013 07:27 PM (/FnUH)
Posted by: gracepmc at October 01, 2013 07:34 PM (rznx3)
So we should just keep spending and inflicting very seriously felt pain on the American people so that departments of the federal government can do things that "need" to be done?
Sorry, but to me that sounds akin to letting a gangrenous wound fester because operating on it will require the patient to be anesthetized thereby preventing him from picking the kids up from school.
Posted by: csmats at October 01, 2013 07:36 PM (9yxBr)
And the stories about passing off worthless employees to the next sucker instead of firing their worthless asses just pissed me off for...well, ever too.
*drinks in frustration*
Posted by: NC Ref at October 01, 2013 07:39 PM (Myqtp)
Unfortunately, I agree with you. Seems there is a reason that the Republicans are called the "Stupid Party".
What we have is a battle for ideology, not just with the average American, but within the party itself. The Democrats went through a similar battle with the Liberals, and the Liberals won, due to decades of stacking the Educational system and the Media. Unfortunately, I don't see that we conservatives have decades to follow a similar strategy to undo the damage that they can, will, and have done to us as a country.
I don't say give up the fight, as we have to continue fighting, but, as of this moment, I don't see where we really have a chance to win. But, damn it, I'm not gonna go down while I still have rounds in my clip, and even after that I'm gonna go Davy Crockett on them (invoking an image from the original "Alamo" movie, pre-revisionist style!)!
Where is the next Ronald Reagan when we need him???
Posted by: chefwes at October 01, 2013 07:42 PM (nsB4u)
Posted by: Adam B at October 01, 2013 07:49 PM (0XqlD)
Posted by: docweasel at October 01, 2013 07:54 PM (hlFA8)
Posted by: mr_jack at October 01, 2013 07:59 PM (TMG3G)
Posted by: eveofdestruction at October 01, 2013 08:03 PM (pVfba)
Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at October 01, 2013 08:14 PM (ligos)
Posted by: Blacque Jacques Shellacque at October 01, 2013 08:24 PM (/IXKu)
"Essential employees can keep the government running, but they canÂ’t run the government *well*. The non-essential employees are required to run the government at full effectiveness. "
Ah, that was funny. Thanks for the laugh.
Posted by: lily at October 01, 2013 08:26 PM (uw9jr)
Posted by: Socalcon at October 01, 2013 08:31 PM (K6CHr)
I understand the comments from people in the private sector because they already experienced what I am now facing with the shutdown. I'm well paid in my job, but a big chunk of my income is spent living in a high tax, high cost of living blue state. I'm grateful that my wife works to help with the household expenses, but now she has to work two jobs because one of her job reduced her hours. I wish I could say that I'm prepared for a prolonged shutdown, but having an averaged-sized family in a blue state means I need a steady income.
I worked in the private sector for many years, and after working hard to obtain several college degrees, I made a huge career change by joining the Federal government. If my job gets eliminated, I would gladly go back to the private sector if it means reducing the size of big government.
Posted by: onetermer at October 01, 2013 08:39 PM (FWvvi)
The only legitimate use of American military power is to round up all those traitorous racist haters who seek to undermine our wise, multiracial President, Barack Obama, who I and everyone who matters supports completely. The current wars did nothing but enrich international bankers with Jewish last names who then used the money to commit injustices against the poor and oppressed peoples of Palestine.
So go back to your trailer parks, you sister-fucking white trash. Blow yourselves up cooking meth since you don't deserve real jobs. Real jobs are for loyal, correctly-thinking Americans, and soon the best health care will be. You Republicans can get by with some painkillers and a waiting list since you don't matter.
Posted by: Mary Cloggenstein from Brattleboro, Vermont at October 01, 2013 09:23 PM (/lyxQ)
Posted by: sexypig at October 01, 2013 10:06 PM (dZQh7)
The Democrat WANTED a shutdown because with the MFM in their back pocket they thought it was good politics because the Republicans would get blamed by the MFM.
Well in 96 the MFM blamed the Republicans and made up a bunch of phony polls saying the public blamed Republicans but, in fact, the public yawned and went back to what ever passed for the pablum of the week on TV.
We have several problems in this country. The MFM is firmly in the socialist camp and is an active enemy of capitalism unless it impacts their 6 or 7 figure salary. The entrenched bureaucracies have been allowed to unionize since JFK. The parasites have been promised bread and circuses and the Democrats have taken that on as a natural right since that is the way of socialism and communism and the Republicans are not really very fat behind them on this. Especially the Republican leadership. And finally, that FSA is being constantly enlarged by legal and illegal immigration from third world shitholes, even those that hate us and who are actively terrorists.
And finally, that same Republican leadership is working to bring in even more in a stupid attempt to win over some of that FSA even though historically they NEVER support Republicans.
In shot, as Monty says, we are DOOMED. Because yes it is unsustainable and just because we are the United States we are not exempt. We are supporting our huge deficit spending now by printing money and inflation is rampant despite the lies pumped out by the Obamanites. But the real killer is zealous regulation. And the power mad bureaucrats love those.
Posted by: Vic at October 01, 2013 10:12 PM (zZbNF)
I too am a furloughed, conservative/libertarian government employee with more than 25 years service + military time. Upon the first employment offering there was some serious angst about being a hypocrite. I took it with the defense that it is always the intention to earn the salary as it's a consequence of the labor marketplace, albeit a little distorted because government produces nothing, never has, never will. So the salary is earned and all the rules are followed, always. Following the rules really makes enemies; it will result in punishment and retaliation. If you document and play hardball, you can work for the government, earn your salary and be honorable.
This is not the general behavior though as people are fearful, lazy, and there is no significant consequence to doing jobs poorly or not following policy.
I say the House should fight, fight, and fight. Obama loses this and he's washed for the remainder of his time. He's blown it internationally with Syria. He and Reid can blow it domestically by doing just what they're doing. Next election is payback in a big way if he caves. It's a contest of wills. I sent the GOP $12.00 for doing this and support the fight totally. If you don't fight, you sure as hell won't win.
Posted by: Guaman at October 01, 2013 10:26 PM (JFgTJ)
Posted by: IdahoGunnar at October 01, 2013 10:35 PM (3eTlN)
Posted by: eureka! at October 01, 2013 11:35 PM (AtKPC)
This shutdown crap is ALL Kabuki theater.
NO federal workers will be harmed in the making of
this farce.
Posted by: LCDR M(Ret) at October 01, 2013 11:47 PM (79QHE)
Posted by: VADM (Red) Cuthbert Collingwood (Mentioned in Despatches) at October 02, 2013 01:55 AM (yL0v8)
Posted by: VADM (Red) Cuthbert Collingwood (Mentioned in Despatches) at October 02, 2013 02:01 AM (yL0v8)
Posted by: DefendUSA at October 02, 2013 03:20 AM (nAHMK)
Posted by: Dawnsblood at October 02, 2013 03:35 AM (BnxbS)
Posted by: Brendan at October 02, 2013 03:37 AM (8YVZT)
Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 56% more DOOM! at October 02, 2013 04:10 AM (09o/X)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at October 02, 2013 04:10 AM (WjLUf)
Posted by: SpongeBobSaget[/i] at October 02, 2013 04:15 AM (epxV4)
Posted by: Melvin Frohike at October 02, 2013 04:16 AM (sYLzD)
Posted by: UGAdawg at October 02, 2013 04:18 AM (e/9tl)
Posted by: Melvin Frohike at October 02, 2013 08:16 AM (sYLzD)
-- This!
And P.O.G.
Posted by: Velvet Ambition at October 02, 2013 04:19 AM (R8hU8)
Posted by: cu'chelsea at October 02, 2013 04:21 AM (Vk2CC)
Posted by: dogfish at October 02, 2013 04:22 AM (nsOJa)
Posted by: Tim at October 02, 2013 04:25 AM (eByuq)
Alas, contrary to the (well-intentioned!) snark seen across the blogosphere of the Right, “non-essential” is NOT synonymous with “unnecessary.”
THANK YOU. I've been trying to think of how to express this without much luck, but you got it in one.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit Chelsea [/i][/s][/u][/b] at October 02, 2013 04:28 AM (4df7R)
http://www.ufunk.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Milky-Pin-Up-calendar-2.jpg
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at October 02, 2013 04:30 AM (sSHNB)
Posted by: Robbo, what she turned me into a Llama, but I got better at October 02, 2013 04:32 AM (COPHV)
This is such a common trope..yeah if you really really don't need your pension or your SS, fine, be skeptical and cavalier about it. But as the time approaches you may find yourself counting on both.
So *expect* them, and fight for them, or they won't be there due to your indifference. Or make them go away now.
Posted by: Lady Billingsgate (of the North) at October 02, 2013 04:33 AM (E56Kb)
Posted by: eman at October 02, 2013 04:34 AM (AO9UG)
Posted by: steevy at October 02, 2013 04:35 AM (9XBK2)
Posted by: steevy at October 02, 2013 04:36 AM (9XBK2)
Posted by: runningrn at October 02, 2013 04:36 AM (PLOz8)
From Military.com - http://tinyurl.com/pcd39qx
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at October 02, 2013 04:38 AM (sSHNB)
Let me join in this Govt. Worker's Anonymous group.
Hi, my name is...unimportant.
I'm of two minds on this topic. I retired from active duty, but until I finish my schooling, there isn't much for me in the private sector. My injuries prevent me from doing the kind of work that I grew up doing in the military.
So I was fortunate enough to get a job in the AF as a NAF civilian doing work that I know how to do. I'm grateful for the job and the opportunities it brings me. But I hate it. There are things I want to do in my program because I know they will make things work better and more efficiently. But my "leadership" is only interested in protecting their respective territories and doing things the way they have always done them.
So I try to keep things in perspective and say that there is a light at the end of the tunnel. I keep plugging away at my Master's degree and will get my IT certs after that. Then I can jump ship and get into a line of work that a man can be proud of again.
Even without sequesters and furloughs I know that my livlihood can't last. Between my military retirement, VA, and my civilian paycheck, every dime I get comes from the Govt. That galls me, but until I have my ducks in a row, it's all I got. But even so, I can get behind a shutdown. Even if it's for purely symbolic purposes. Yeah I may lose my house. But I can get another. If worse comes to worse, I can resort to banditry like many veterans have had to do for thousands of years. I can get new stuff. But my sons can't get a new country.
Freedom or Fire!
Posted by: Azenogoth at October 02, 2013 04:40 AM (f6ZLT)
How many people does it take to do a job?
It depends on how you do it.
Back in the late '80s, I was called by the new manager of Saginaw Steering division of GM. He wanted me to supplement the supply of a family of parts made in their plant to keep up with demand.
They had a section of one plant devoted to these parts, with 58 union workers split among 3 shifts, working 24/7 at great expense. I suggested that I supplement his supply for 60 days then buy out his operation and supply 100% at a set cost. He took the deal.
Two months later, he had all the parts he needed, supplied by 16 of my workers running 5 days a week on a single 10 hour shift.
We changed the way the parts were made. The previous method was so labor intensive that it appeared to be designed by someone trying to create useless positions. And this is the private sector. I imagine the government is 10 times worse.
As we're organized now, no one in the government has any incentive to do things better. That shit has to change.
Posted by: jwest at October 02, 2013 04:41 AM (u2a4R)
Posted by: Melvin Frohike at October 02, 2013 04:41 AM (sYLzD)
Posted by: rickb223 at October 02, 2013 04:43 AM (8D0/R)
Posted by: NotCoach at October 02, 2013 04:43 AM (rsudF)
Like you, I am non-essential. I will define essential for the folks here as "required to keep the funds moving to their ultimate goal" more than essential service types. That's why nearly all of the contracts/acquisition people are working today, and my job classification is at home.
I went to the government after 15 years in the private sector and I am strongly considering a return.
Posted by: Tocquevillian at October 02, 2013 04:47 AM (iuY0Y)
Posted by: steevy at October 02, 2013 04:50 AM (9XBK2)
Posted by: steevy at October 02, 2013 04:51 AM (9XBK2)
Posted by: Czar Peter at October 02, 2013 04:52 AM (CXr4y)
"I went to the government after 15 years in the private sector and I am strongly considering a return."
Posted by: Tocquevillian at October 02, 2013 08:47 AM (iuY0Y)
To quote a line from Forrest Gump, "Are you stupid or something?"
You're in a position that you could kill your supervisor and not be fired, have more paid days off than most new workers will have to work and you're thinking of going back because every 15 years or so there is a few day shutdown?
Posted by: jwest at October 02, 2013 04:53 AM (u2a4R)
Posted by: Melvin Frohike at October 02, 2013 04:53 AM (sYLzD)
Posted by: bour3 at October 02, 2013 04:53 AM (5x3+2)
Posted by: steevy at October 02, 2013 04:54 AM (9XBK2)
Posted by: Steve in Greensboro at October 02, 2013 04:55 AM (sugnf)
Levin is a very bright guy, with a conversational tone that probably got him beat up a lot in college.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at October 02, 2013 04:56 AM (/kU/5)
Posted by: cirque de soothsayer at October 02, 2013 04:56 AM (FC8Yl)
Posted by: [/i][/b][/s]akula51 at October 02, 2013 04:56 AM (4p5/2)
Posted by: steevy at October 02, 2013 04:56 AM (9XBK2)
Posted by: D1St at October 02, 2013 04:56 AM (fIkHQ)
Posted by: Blacksheep at October 02, 2013 04:56 AM (bS6uW)
Posted by: steevy at October 02, 2013 04:57 AM (9XBK2)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at October 02, 2013 05:00 AM (XIxXP)
Posted by: SnakePlizzken at October 02, 2013 05:00 AM (E1gBU)
Posted by: Hrothgar at October 02, 2013 05:01 AM (XdnQT)
Posted by: Paladin at October 02, 2013 05:02 AM (+Wvn3)
For example, how closely did actual government spending track when compared to the annual budget that Congress submitted, as required by law?
What...?
Never mind.
Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at October 02, 2013 05:02 AM (xdC/M)
Posted by: steevy at October 02, 2013 05:02 AM (9XBK2)
Posted by: Dan the Pan at October 02, 2013 05:02 AM (L1wJg)
Posted by: Y-not on the phone at October 02, 2013 05:02 AM (cmekS)
Posted by: eman at October 02, 2013 05:03 AM (AO9UG)
--
Yep. Welcome to Obama's Healthcare. Ain't it gonna be grand? I simply can't wait until they've achieved single payer and 300+ million of us are trying to manage through this absolute mess with our gov't issued healthcare.
Oh, and I'm still very much steaming about the WWII memorial fiasco. Simply can't hate this administration more than I do. It's not possible.
Posted by: Lady in Black at October 02, 2013 05:04 AM (XB5Ak)
Posted by: steevy at October 02, 2013 05:04 AM (9XBK2)
Posted by: Lincolntf at October 02, 2013 05:05 AM (ZshNr)
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama has canceled two stops on his long-planned trip to Asia because of the partial government shutdown, the White House announced Wednesday.
Obama is scheduled to leave Saturday night for what was originally a four-nation tour. The White House said Obama will still travel to Indonesia and Brunei, but is calling off the final two stops in Malaysia and the Philippines.
Awwww..poor widdle Barry. He can't waste more of our money. I'm sure Malaysia and the Philippines are weeping uncontrollably over it
Posted by: TheQuietMan at October 02, 2013 05:05 AM (1Jaio)
Nicely stated, Dave.
I too am a civilian non-essential employee at a 3-letter agency, as well as a small gov/tea party advocate. I get a lot of crap from my friends, as they see me as hypocritical when I complain about the waste, fraud and abuse I see on a daily basis.
You couldn't be more correct about the useless baggage employees that can under no circumstances be removed from federal service, once they've been on the job for at least one year. Unsustainable!
Posted by: Ksam14 at October 02, 2013 05:05 AM (OtQXp)
Posted by: steevy at October 02, 2013 05:05 AM (9XBK2)
Posted by: alexthechick - Bring the SMOD at October 02, 2013 05:06 AM (VtjlW)
Posted by: Y-not on the phone at October 02, 2013 05:06 AM (cmekS)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at October 02, 2013 05:06 AM (XIxXP)
Posted by: steevy at October 02, 2013 05:06 AM (9XBK2)
Posted by: John at October 02, 2013 05:06 AM (qMjzc)
Posted by: Vote Lord Humungus 2016 at October 02, 2013 05:07 AM (HEa5q)
Have you seen anything of an official nature concerning the Navy game?
As season ticket holders, the last official communication I saw was that the decision would be made no later than noon on this Thursday.
Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at October 02, 2013 05:07 AM (xdC/M)
Posted by: Y-not on the phone at October 02, 2013 05:07 AM (cmekS)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at October 02, 2013 05:08 AM (XIxXP)
Posted by: Ksam14 at October 02, 2013 09:05 AM (OtQXp)
From your experience, how many people are in your agency/section/whatever and how many would it actually take if you had total control over accomplishing whatever goal it is you do?
Posted by: jwest at October 02, 2013 05:09 AM (u2a4R)
Posted by: Y-not on the phone at October 02, 2013 05:10 AM (cmekS)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at October 02, 2013 09:06 AM (XIxXP)
------ ---- ----- ------ ------
And of course, now that the police are there in numbers, their stupid "CPR" back filling justification makes no sense. In addition to the memorial being open 24-7.
This is an intentional provocation by Obama trying to get a reaction he can crack down on.
Dark days.
Posted by: Beagle at October 02, 2013 05:10 AM (sOtz/)
http://www.honorflight.org/tour/
Be warned it flakes out on occasion and has to refresh.
Today 2 October are four groups -
Chicago
Southern New Mexico
Heartland
Franklin CO, MO.
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at October 02, 2013 05:10 AM (sSHNB)
Posted by: rickb223 at October 02, 2013 05:11 AM (8D0/R)
Posted by: Tocquevillian at October 02, 2013 05:11 AM (iuY0Y)
I'm sure that if it was given to Biden, it has a coloring book inside or something. No doubt they put stuff like "CODEWORD" or "TOP SECRET" on documents destined for Biden to make him feel like he's a double ought secret agent or something.
Posted by: Diogenes' Lamp at October 02, 2013 05:11 AM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at October 02, 2013 05:11 AM (XIxXP)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at October 02, 2013 05:12 AM (sSHNB)
Posted by: Y-not on the phone at October 02, 2013 05:12 AM (cmekS)
NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. private employers added a fewer-than-expected 166,000 jobs in September, according to Wednesday data from a payrolls processor, underscoring steady but still sluggish growth in the labor market.
Economists surveyed by Reuters had forecast the ADP National Employment Report would show a gain of 180,000 jobs. August's private payrolls gains were revised to 159,000 from the previously reported 176,000.
It must be because of the shut down. Damn Republicans
Posted by: TheQuietMan at October 02, 2013 05:13 AM (1Jaio)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at October 02, 2013 05:14 AM (XIxXP)
I sense 50% less douche-snark from Gabe this morning. Looks like someone got the "come to Jesus" talk yesterday. Still not posting in the Top Headlines Comments threads and I urge any other moron to do the same.
Posted by: EC at October 02, 2013 05:14 AM (GQ8sn)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at October 02, 2013 05:14 AM (sSHNB)
Posted by: EPA,DOE,DHS at October 02, 2013 05:15 AM (5ikDv)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at October 02, 2013 05:15 AM (XIxXP)
--
Exactly. I'm seriously enraged that this pr*** of a president would do such a thing. Do this....on purpose to try and score his immature, unpresidential political points. What a rotten !@#$% POS.
Good to see you back, OSP. I haven't seen you in the comments lately. I thought Simpsonville might've had a big sink hole I didn't hear about.
Posted by: Lady in Black at October 02, 2013 05:15 AM (XB5Ak)
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at October 02, 2013 05:15 AM (QA8q2)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at October 02, 2013 05:16 AM (XIxXP)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at October 02, 2013 05:16 AM (sSHNB)
Posted by: Lincolntf at October 02, 2013 05:16 AM (ZshNr)
Posted by: Melvin Frohike at October 02, 2013 05:16 AM (sYLzD)
I listen to him occasionally, and find myself turning to another station in spite of being in agreement with much of what he says, or being interested in his almost always perceptive comments.
The perpetual anger and insult in his voice, coupled with a particularly irritating pitch (tone?) is too much for me.
If I want to be irritated I'll just talk with my wife.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at October 02, 2013 05:16 AM (/kU/5)
Posted by: Mainah at October 02, 2013 05:16 AM (659DL)
--
"Daddy!"
/Lady in Black wanting a shiny, new BMW convertible
Posted by: Lady in Black at October 02, 2013 05:17 AM (XB5Ak)
What I don't understand is they can afford park police to keep people out but not let them in?
-
Not to mention the fact that they are spending more to keep people out than they spend to let them in. It is a plan agreed to by both parties to try and inflict whatever pain they can on the citizens, to punish them for not rolling over.
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at October 02, 2013 05:17 AM (QA8q2)
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at October 02, 2013 09:04 AM (/kU/5)
I think the problem is that the government can lay you off without actually laying you off.
So my wife is in at work with no pay in sight (but still working, and promised back pay eventually).
In a more traditional job, you'd get let go, file for unemployment, start looking for a new job.
Cycle of life stuff.
In this case, your paycheck ends and the....you're either conscripted to work without pay or just sorta stuck in limbo (my state site makes it appear that you can file for unemployment if you're furloughed, but I'm not entirely sure how that would work.)
I can understand the desire for a little clarity (even at the expense of perceived security.)
I can tell you things are about as bad as they have been in a long time at the rblke household.
Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No really.) at October 02, 2013 05:18 AM (GaqMa)
Posted by: Diogenes' Lamp at October 02, 2013 05:18 AM (bb5+k)
If Army no-shows at Boston College on Saturday, I assume they'll be subject to all sorts fines/penalties from the NCAA, the ACC and the networks scheduled to carry the game. Any other team would be.
If I were the BC AD I'd tell Army to come on up to play, we'll cover your costs and you pay us back when everything is over.
Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at October 02, 2013 05:18 AM (JxMoP)
Honestly, I find it hard to understand, outside of daily putting your life in danger, what anybody could do for a living that is worth that much money. Now don't get me wrong. I'm no Communist/Socialist and I don't want wage controls. You can make anything you want. and can get, in the private sector as far as I'm concerned. But making 100K in a civil service job should be as rare as alien visits if you ask me.
Posted by: Rocks at October 02, 2013 05:18 AM (vR0sZ)
Posted by: rickb223 at October 02, 2013 09:11 AM (8D0/R)
I hear that next year they are going to start to pave them.
Congratulations!
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at October 02, 2013 05:19 AM (/kU/5)
Posted by: Y-not on the phone at October 02, 2013 05:20 AM (izCt9)
Posted by: Diogenes' Lamp at October 02, 2013 05:20 AM (bb5+k)
But when someone qualifies a statement with "to be honest" - it implies that they weren't previously being honest. Then I wondered what wasn't honestly stated after that anecdote. And that made me nervous. Very nervous.
Posted by: Christopher Walken at October 02, 2013 05:20 AM (h75XG)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at October 02, 2013 05:20 AM (XIxXP)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at October 02, 2013 05:21 AM (sSHNB)
So cancelling service academy football games is a real thing?
By the transitive property of scheduling, that screws up the entire football season. Aside from costing instead of saving money.
Posted by: Beagle at October 02, 2013 05:21 AM (sOtz/)
Posted by: Diogenes' Lamp at October 02, 2013 05:22 AM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Diogenes' Lamp at October 02, 2013 09:20 AM (bb5+k)
-
There is indeed a difference. Democrats promise to give money to their voters in return for votes, and promise to make their world better - failing to ever do anything to make that second promise come true. Republicans promise to cut taxes for their voters, and promise to cut back the size of government - failing to ever do anything to make that second promise come true.
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at October 02, 2013 05:23 AM (QA8q2)
Stunned by some of these comments , though.
By the reasoning of some of these commenters , Amazon employees should quit their jobs because Bezos is a big Obama donor .
Sheesh.
Posted by: drivebylurker at October 02, 2013 05:23 AM (5ikDv)
Posted by: MJ at October 02, 2013 05:24 AM (uUq75)
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at October 02, 2013 05:24 AM (sSHNB)
I can only wish you the best, and hope that it works out.
[But....this is personalizing a large problem, and it works well for Obama (and his mentor: Saul Alinsky).]
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at October 02, 2013 05:24 AM (/kU/5)
also , i thank them for sticking their heads up , it is a rather dangerous thing to do in these times.
Posted by: willow at October 02, 2013 05:26 AM (nqBYe)
"a big government employee who happily hates big government."
Not so unusual. One of the biggest Ron Paul-type libertarians I ever knew worked for the Social Security office.
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at October 02, 2013 05:28 AM (YYJjz)
Thank you for your comment. I chose to post anonymously. I have a job that is VERY specific, insofar as I know all of the people in Washington, D.C. who do similar jobs. Had I shared too many details, others with my knowledge would be able to identify me. I'd prefer to avoid that.
I'm sorry that I have to ask and others to take the word of a stranger on faith that my job is a vital, necessary *government* function that has no easy analogue in the private sector.
That's not to say *I* am a vital or necessary employee. As others have sagely said above, the graveyards are full of indispensable men. Others could do my job, almost certainly better than I.
Just not during a shutdown.
Posted by: Dave at Garfield Ridge at October 02, 2013 05:28 AM (/FnUH)
That, combined with the fact that both my husband & I are long-term unemployed (due to our specialized fields, Philly's crappy economy, our ages and inability to move due to aging parents) and living on our savings leaves me with little understanding for those with government jobs.
I hope this doesn't sound nasty because it isn't meant that way. But how can we go on this way? There will never be any way to separate "good" workers who work from those that don't, right? I guess it's LIB all the way down.
Posted by: jeannebodine at October 02, 2013 05:29 AM (2LJqa)
Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at October 02, 2013 05:29 AM (cFpBs)
Posted by: RWC at October 02, 2013 05:30 AM (fWAjv)
Posted by: RWC at October 02, 2013 05:30 AM (fWAjv)
I guess government employees get daily deposits.
Posted by: Waterhouse at October 02, 2013 05:31 AM (YVx8A)
Have fun with these budget figures.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/budget_pie_gs.php
Posted by: wg at October 02, 2013 05:31 AM (wILti)
Well isn't that usually the tactic for Dem leadership?
Dave said.{'m sorry that I have to ask and others to take the word of a stranger on faith that my job is a vital, necessary *government* function that has no easy analogue in the private sector}
They threaten with those that are essential as Police service while keeping those that are tasked with being relevant to their cause (often) in service.
you know , the make it hurt as badly as possible Progressive way.
Posted by: willow at October 02, 2013 05:33 AM (nqBYe)
Posted by: Mainah at October 02, 2013 05:34 AM (659DL)
It completely warps reality. My relatively short time at Lockheed was rife with nepotism, favoritism, covering up of fuck-ups, outright contract fraud. Navy guys covering for other Navy guys even when they bill a contract for work while having been out of the office for a week in the Caribbean. Hiring your Army's buddy's daughter to do a job she's not qualified for, then forcing those that actually can do the work to try to train the vapid little shit. That type of thing.
I'm working for a very small company now that does specialized contract and govt related work. Even in a small company, maybe *especially* in a small company, that "lifeblood" from the sweet sweet gubmint cheese turns the rational into the irrational. The only difference is that in the smaller company, it's much harder to cover up malfeasance, so at least there's that.
Yes, contractors generally produce necessary products, but the motivation isn't to produce a good product and get a fair price. It's to bill hours.
That shit needs to change, too.
Posted by: grognard at October 02, 2013 05:34 AM (/29Nl)
Posted by: Diogenes' Lamp at October 02, 2013 05:35 AM (bb5+k)
Thank you for your comment. When the majority of your people are sent home during a shutdown, the system is no longer "as large"-- the people remaining can't do all the work of those that were furloughed.
Most of that work can afford not to be done-- perhaps *never* to be done (recall my support for RIF's). But not all of that work can be ignored indefinitely, not without consequences that few people would be willing to accept from the United States government.
The ideal size of the Department of Defense, and USG as a whole, is less than it was on Monday, but I am unconvinced *at this stage* that it is the size it is on Wednesday.
Posted by: Dave at Garfield Ridge at October 02, 2013 05:35 AM (/FnUH)
Posted by: willow at October 02, 2013 05:36 AM (nqBYe)
Posted by: Meriadoc at October 02, 2013 05:36 AM (yFFC0)
Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at October 02, 2013 05:37 AM (zF6Iw)
Posted by: Mainah at October 02, 2013 05:38 AM (659DL)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at October 02, 2013 05:38 AM (XIxXP)
Posted by: huggy at October 02, 2013 05:38 AM (o00SF)
Posted by: eman at October 02, 2013 05:39 AM (AO9UG)
Posted by: X at October 02, 2013 05:41 AM (KHo8t)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at October 02, 2013 05:41 AM (XIxXP)
Posted by: willow at October 02, 2013 05:42 AM (nqBYe)
You know very well it's all Potemkin drama. It's a facade designed to advance the political agenda desired by the current rodent in office.
Of course it is. It's designed to bring the pain in as obvious a fashion as possible. The same park rangers that a week ago were welcoming visitors to various parks, and landmarks are the same rangers that now man the barrycades to prevent people from entering.
And it's suspicious as hell that the same technological advancements that have enabled private businesses to do more with less has the exact opposite effect on federal hiring. They had three fucking years to get the exchanges up and running, and screwed that up...and screwed it up so badly that Obama is refusing to reveal the number of people that managed to sign up for health insurance yesterday.
Posted by: Sticky Wicket at October 02, 2013 05:42 AM (0IhFx)
I'm pretty sure I could listen to you bitch all night long. Just throwing that in.
Posted by: Stringer Davis at October 02, 2013 05:43 AM (JNUY4)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at October 02, 2013 05:44 AM (XIxXP)
Posted by: Burn the Witch at October 02, 2013 05:44 AM (sFQyf)
The last thing we want to do is drive the conservative people out of the federal government by calling they out as some sort of turn coat.
We don't need to turn this into a "you didn't build that" purity argument because most of you drawing a paycheck probably have some federal or state tax money supporting your company, but that is the truth.
Posted by: Tocquevillian at October 02, 2013 05:47 AM (iuY0Y)
Posted by: MJ at October 02, 2013 05:48 AM (uUq75)
Levin must have driven lefties crazy when he was at DOJ. And I bet he relished it.
I like Levin, but, man, that voice. A few sessions with a vocal coach would do wonders.
I've hit a wall, Like Wyle E Coyote hits the tunnel opening painted on the rock. I'm stepping away and will hit it again in awhile.
Oh, do I feel your pain. As someone who's in the same situation, all I can do is offer sympathy.
**passes bottle of Pappy through USB port**
Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at October 02, 2013 05:50 AM (zF6Iw)
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at October 02, 2013 09:24 AM (/kU/5)
A point rightly taken.
My situation (and our household problems) are more the result of bad choices years ago that get accentuated during financial strife. Our financial strife just happens to be tied to the government right now (different choices some time back may have tied it to the financial sector, or manufacturing, who knows.)
I still think (at least I think I think) that such a stand was necessary to attempt to change the balance of power in DC (which way? That's still unclear).
However, having said that, the government does not play by the rules of any normal employer, for the crappy employees that works out well for them (they can never get fired). For the good employees it means you'd probably be better off overall somewhere else.
At some point we need severe civil service reform, such that the government gains more power to fire employees (especially for performance). But also so that government can no longer conscript employees by decree.
Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No really.) at October 02, 2013 05:53 AM (GaqMa)
Posted by: Y-not on the phone at October 02, 2013 05:53 AM (9++oZ)
Probably would be better to let the statists have 100% of the bureaucracy.
Do the right thing DAGR.
Quit for the cause!
Posted by: another stupid commenter at October 02, 2013 05:54 AM (5ikDv)
Posted by: willow at October 02, 2013 09:42 AM (nqBYe)
Since it is nearly impossible to fire a federal employee, the shitheads get great evals from their supervisors in hopes they'll get hired by some other dumbass.
I think that's how the biggest shitheads go up the ladder faster than anyone else.
Posted by: Invictus at October 02, 2013 05:54 AM (FBkKA)
Obama is doubling down on stupid. Park Service employees, (just the most essential ones), are laying out new barricades around various outdoor memorials in DC. In at least one case, after being photographed, they kind of ran away.
Posted by: Sticky Wicket at October 02, 2013 05:55 AM (0IhFx)
They should be forced to suffer at their dead-end job.
Like me.
Posted by: yet another stupid commenter at October 02, 2013 05:57 AM (5ikDv)
Posted by: Y-not on the phone at October 02, 2013 06:01 AM (tNMLW)
The attitudes here towards federal workers isn't unique to radical right wing extremists (which is how the world sees us), but is shared by most Americans in the private sector.
To emphasis why we're the Stupid Party, just look at how the shutdown is being played by the other side. They are out there showing poor, downtrodden federal workers, scared stiff, not knowing where their next meal is coming from, all due to the heartless Tea Partiers.
It's beyond our ability, because we're just too fucking stupid to think of it, to showcase people like the IRS worker someone mentioned above who "works" 3 days a week out of their house without internet connection. Show the poor workers making $150K and what their retirement benefits will be and how much they do each week to earn it.
People would flood into the streets with pitchforks and torches.
Maybe some day, smart people will take over this fight. We can only hope.
Posted by: jwest at October 02, 2013 06:05 AM (u2a4R)
*****************
If I thought that could ever happen, there would be some hope. Unfortunately, since the public service unions fund the Democrat party, I doubt that will ever happen (along with other reasons, of course).
Posted by: jeannebodine at October 02, 2013 06:09 AM (2LJqa)
Posted by: rld777 at October 02, 2013 06:13 AM (gObCt)
Posted by: jeannebodine at October 02, 2013 10:09 AM (2LJqa)
Which is odd when you think about it, since unions are a minority of government workers.
Although I have a theory that regardless of union affiliation, for some reason government works naturally band together. Sometimes it comes across as a good thing (when fellow co-workers with higher salaries help out the new employees make it though the instability)
Other times it's delusional and bad (like when you can't criticize 20 year employees for still living paycheck to paycheck.)
Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No really.) at October 02, 2013 06:14 AM (GaqMa)
Posted by: X at October 02, 2013 06:15 AM (KHo8t)
Posted by: Melvin Frohike at October 02, 2013 06:16 AM (sYLzD)
Posted by: Melvin Frohike at October 02, 2013 10:16 AM (sYLzD)
In fairness to my point. by "At some point" I mean we currently have larger fish to fry and you have to prioritize your battles.
I'd like to see:
Entitlement reform
Tax Code reform
Shrunken government payrolls by attrition (the easiest way to start)
Then we can get to civil service reform (which will be as big of a battle as the first two.)
But frankly we need to start with the first two.
Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No really.) at October 02, 2013 06:18 AM (GaqMa)
Posted by: Melvin Frohike at October 02, 2013 06:26 AM (sYLzD)
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at October 02, 2013 06:29 AM (C2ezr)
>>Unfortunately, for all the unnecessary bureaucrats, all of the useless departments, etc., even if almost all besides the DoD were eliminated, we will still be boned. Why? Transfer payments to individuals--Social Security, Disability, Medicare, Medicaid, Student Aid, TANF, SNAP, etc. along with the required interest payments to bondholders, are consuming the federal budget alive. Folks, as Pogo said, we have met the enemy and he is us.
.
.You do understand that the actual National Debt will never be paid back right? There is no intention of it ever being paid. Devaluation of the dollar and inflation are set to take care of it. I will be able to pay my monthly mortgage payment with change from McDonalds at some point in the not too distant future.
Posted by: Registered Voter at October 02, 2013 06:31 AM (xqjwP)
Posted by: doug at October 02, 2013 06:32 AM (uJ8q7)
Posted by: guy who makes big bucks on flipping federally mortgaged houses and section 8 rent at October 02, 2013 06:41 AM (5ikDv)
Posted by: Mrs. Peel at October 02, 2013 06:44 AM (1EtXn)
RIP, Tom Clancy. Mr. Clark is sad.
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn at October 02, 2013 06:47 AM (EGPJQ)
For doug. And X.
Posted by: Brown and Root, SAIC,Halliburton at October 02, 2013 06:48 AM (5ikDv)
Dave, thanks for the post and your work. Having interned at the State department made me realize that, as much as I disagree with the scope and size of our government, some of the most intelligent and hardest working individuals in our nation work for the fed. gov.
As it should be, after all, we ideally have top men working for us and some of those in DC actually fit the bill.
State, like DoD, is essential. And while there is fluff, it is important to understand that there are people like you who are needed and who are suffering.
I hope that someday, some Congress will pass a law that all he heads of the various departments have to be pulled from career officers in the department itself. The career officers like yourself are, IMO, the only ones who will have the institutional knowledge to reform the bureaucracy.
Posted by: Stone at October 02, 2013 07:03 AM (4sMhD)
And I love how every time you switch to Trevor, he's just recovering from drinking on a dam, or a roof top, or a shady alleyway. Deff a moron.
Posted by: Stone at October 02, 2013 07:05 AM (4sMhD)
294: " Honestly, this blogger sounds more like a big government republican than a tea partier that he claims......been working for the government too long to realize it."
I never thought of it that way. But it must be true.
Yep. All those 20+ year Marine Corps SNCOs? Closet liberals every one...
/sarc
Posted by: Azenogoth at October 02, 2013 07:11 AM (LJpVo)
Posted by: X at October 02, 2013 07:11 AM (KHo8t)
Posted by: andrew at October 02, 2013 07:14 AM (VjlMj)
Posted by: debiesam at October 02, 2013 07:21 AM (B2Ozb)
Posted by: debiesam at October 02, 2013 07:26 AM (B2Ozb)
Posted by: palooka at October 02, 2013 07:27 AM (aNlIg)
So what?
The reality is, if your job is as important as you deem it, it will not be shut down. Otherwise, it is not as important as you perceive it.
Or maybe it is as important as you perceive it, but the higher ups don't perceive it that way and shut it down and because of that, something bad happens. Those are DECISIONS that are made.
Otherwise, your argument boils down to "my job is so important we should not shut down the other 50% of unnecessary and unimportant jobs just to keep my job going".
In other words, you argue that because there are some important jobs that may - more for political reasons than the actual "shutdown" requires - go undone for awhile, we should never shut the gov't down. but in reality, that argument extends out to reducing the scope and size of gov't at all. If we get rid of Department X - some small but really important function of Department X will go undone. Ergo, we should not shut down Department X. We should keep a huge boondoggle going to protect one job.
it sucks to be in a job where this happens. Of course, this could happen in any job. Businesses fail. They close. They downsize. They fire.
And, I hate to be rude or dismissive, but the idea that you are the one guy in all of gov't that can "do what you do" seems ludicrous. If it is true, our DOD is idiotic. If your job is so damn important, there should be some back-up at the very least in case you die tomorrow. I think the more realistic answer is you are way over-valuing your talent and necessity to the organization. That's not saying you are not smart, good at what you do, or whatnot - but the idea that the entire nation depends on your skill and knowledge and nobody else could step in seems a little . . . .
Posted by: Monkeytoe at October 02, 2013 07:36 AM (sOx93)
Posted by: LIght Bulb! at October 02, 2013 07:39 AM (5ikDv)
I'm sorry that you have been living off my tax dollars for years, residing in the only part of the nation that is growing, and are getting a paid vacation.
No, seriously.
I am sorry Dave that you are sitting at home playing video games and whining about how really conflicted you feel about wanting a smaller, more efficient govt. but, darn it, its hard because ....
Whatever.
Quite frankly, arbitrary cuts ought to start at about 30% in salary and bennies for everyone except active duty military. That was the last number that I remember seeing for how much govvies were overpaid with respect to similar jobs in the private sector.
Prove that your job / department / program / actions are specified in the Constitution and you get to keep your job.
Oh, and that justification isn't the "good and plenty" clause as some gov't official called the General Welfare portion of the Constitution.
The rest of you are gone.
Unless of course you want to really do "public service". I hear that the Marines are still hiring.
Posted by: Mark E at October 02, 2013 07:44 AM (w5RwR)
what. a. guy.
Posted by: drivebylurker at October 02, 2013 07:49 AM (5ikDv)
Dave, thanks for the thoughtful post.
I feel for the private sector employees who are unemployed and/or struggling through what does seem like a recession that, despite being "officially" over a number of years ago, never really seems to end.
But I also feel for productive employees who work for the government who have lost jobs or are struggling as well. I do not believe that being conservative precludes you from working for the government.
And as bad as I feel for people who are trying to cope with the new normal, I loathe with the heat of a thousand suns those of the political class and the elites who would use this latest drama as an opportunity to inflict more pain on as many as possible to achieve their political goals.
Posted by: RM at October 02, 2013 07:58 AM (/Frlf)
Posted by: McAdams at October 02, 2013 08:00 AM (Z5G2/)
That's like arguing we shouldn't breath air. It is nearly impossible to earn a living without the gov't being involved somehow. That is precisely the problem. The gov't is too large and doing things it should not be doing.
I love that argument - if you accept Section 8 as a landlord, you therefore "live off" the gov't and should support all gov't programs/spending. Of course, if you refuse section 8, you would probably be called a racist.
How about, I have a property and I rent it out. Because the tenant is subsidized by gov't for paying rent, doesn't mean I support big-gov't. It's a stupid argument. I suppose if a grocery store accepts food stamps, it means the grocery store is a big gov't lover? Or if Mcdonald's takes money the customer received from Welfare, that makes McDonald's a big-gov't lover?
Idiot.
Of course, it is just as likely that you are Ace or Dave himself, playing the parody of a lefty and using your anonymity to attack those who disagree with your OP.
Posted by: Monkeytoe at October 02, 2013 08:01 AM (sOx93)
The lack of empathy here is amazing.
Other Morons/ettes have issues with being out of work and the sympathy flows; Government Morons/ettes? Scorn. Derision. Hatred - HATRED - that I usually (and accurately) associate with Progressives.
These folks haven't caused whatever's bad in your life to happen; these folks haven't killed your job or made you lose your house or given you illnesses. These folks haven't destroyed the economy; these folks are not the reason that you feel such visceral hatred, anger, and rage. These folks are not your targets - the Progressives are where you should be directing your ire.
And if any of you are laboring under the illusion that the government workers are going to get back-pay, you are conveniently overlooking the fact that it would be political suicide to do so in today's fiscal climate.
Don't let yourself be taken in by the Divider-In-Chief's actions; don't give in to easy hate.
Posted by: Al Shabbah at October 02, 2013 08:09 AM (DSXU+)
A vast majority of federal civilian employees are liberals, and in fact, they are part of the problem. Not every federal employee, but in general. their unions give money (and volunteers) to elect liberals. They work as petty tyrants in their own bureaucracy and do things, a la the IRS to make life more miserable for conservatives and/or just regular business owners. The idea that you can total divorce the gov't from the people who make up the gov't is a little bit ignorant.
Again, I'm not saying Dave is a problem, or that every federal employee is lazy, or bad. but the majority are absolutely a huge part of the problem.
And if any of you are laboring under the illusion that the government workers are going to get back-pay, you are conveniently overlooking the fact that it would be political suicide to do so in today's fiscal climate.
I would not be surprised at all if they received back-pay.
I don't agree that my comment was hate. I was not saying Dave deserved to be furloughed or deserves to be out of work. I do say that his argument for why it is bad is typical of many conservatives and part of the real problem conservatives have. People are conservative EXCEPT for their own pet project, or their own job, or their own field. So, they are all for abolishing parts of gov't - just not ethanol subsidies if they are from Nebraska, or just not educational programs if they are teachers, etc.
How many times doe we see otherwise very conservative commenters come on and post in favor of public school teacher tenure or public school teacher employee unions - because they are public school teachers. On any other thread they will be as conservative as anyone else, but when it comes close to home - suddenly all of the gov't perks and union nonsense makes perfect sense and is rational.
This is exactly why conservatism is such a hard sell. We can't even get conservatives to all agree on what should be cut from the Federal Gov't because almost every conservative has their own pet subsidy/policy/program/agency that they want to protect. Some want to save this weapon platform or that military base, some want to protect ethanol subsidies or mohair subsidies, some want to protect the department of education, some want to protect public television, some want to protect this or that highway earmark. So, nothing ever gets accomplished in terms of cutting things out of the federal gov't.
My own comment to Dave was pointing out just that. It is very unlikely he and his job with the federal gov't are quite as indispensable as he believes. That isn't to say he is a bad person, or that he deserves to be out of work. Just that his arguments regarding the shutdown are weak and unpersuasive.
Posted by: Monkeytoe at October 02, 2013 08:33 AM (sOx93)
And yet...you make over $100,000 per year.
Holy shit, Dave. It took me a lot longer than 10 years in the private sector to crack six figures.
I employ an experienced, talented mechanical design engineer who makes about $40,000 per year. I employ a marketing manager, with a 4 year degree in marketing from a good school, for less than that.
You know why it's so expensive to live in DC? Because there's so goddamned much money there, pilfered from the productive part of society, and lavished upon people at rates completely disconnected from market forces. I'm sorry about your plight, but the details of your post just reinforce my belief that the longer the government remains shut down, and the more people see that things go along pretty much the same as they did pre-shutnado, the better.
Posted by: Pastafarian at October 02, 2013 08:44 AM (ffv4E)
I think we need to shelve the term "public servant". Dave - you state you make well into the 6 figures for a salary. Add to that the substantial pension and other benefits of federal employment, and I don't believe you are making any sacrifices by being a federal employee.
"Public servant" to me indicates someone making low wages to do necessary work. Making true sacrifices in their own lives for the good of the public. I don't really see career, high salary individuals, working in fields they want to work in, really being "public servants" in that vein.
30 years ago or more, a public servant was a firefighter or police officer. Someone who did a necessary and dangerous job for decent - but not great pay. But now, firefighters and police officers make way, way more, with way better benefits, than the market would ever dictate. Instead of being a sacrifice of some nature to become a police officer and forgo another career, being a police officer pays much, much more than the average job in most municipalities, making police officers top income earners in most places. And they can retire at 50 with great pensions (while they last) and great health-care.
I don't know that there is anyone anymore that I consider a "public servant" really. Certainly not most elected officials. Not police officers or firefighters as I said. Not over-paid and under-accountable teachers. Not mailmen. I can think of very few jobs where a gov't employee (local, state or federal) is paid less than the market would bear. In most instances, these employees are paid far, far greater than the market dictates. In fact, gov't employment is better than most private employment, making the concept of "public servant" anachronistic.
I don't have a problem with a conservative working for gov't - I have worked for local gov't in the past. It obviously depends on what the job is. There are many perfectly fine jobs a conservative can hold with a gov't without being a traitor to conservatism.
Posted by: Monkeytoe at October 02, 2013 08:49 AM (sOx93)
Even the city employed garbage collectors make way, way more money than the market dictates, and have much better benefits then those workers would get in any other job commensurate with their education/skills.
So, again, it is hard to see where there is any public service. It is a job, like any other, except paying more than it should be.
Posted by: Monkeytoe at October 02, 2013 08:52 AM (sOx93)
Posted by: guy who contracts,purchases and ships ammo to US Military at October 02, 2013 09:17 AM (5ikDv)
Posted by: EROWMER at October 02, 2013 05:34 PM (OONaw)
newsflash gov't hack, Navy Ships *can* sail with the onboard duty crew, that is *precisely* how the size of the on duty crew is established.
Without Respect,
Captain, USNR (Retired)
Posted by: CAPT Mike at October 02, 2013 09:59 PM (DiQnH)
Posted by: Charlie Gibson at October 04, 2013 03:55 PM (61B4w)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2752 seconds, 457 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at October 01, 2013 06:11 PM (vJFM9)