Government disappearances
A little personal tale from the government shutdown - I came back yesterday from vacation at Baxter State Park visiting three moose, two beaver, one insolent racoon, and a million colored leaves, with the plan of leaving next week for our water district's fall trip to Washington DC. We go to lobby the Feds on funding for our various flood control projects and San Francisco Bay restoration program. So much for that trip - our staff tell us that government officials we'd been planning to meet are basically disappearing - they're not even legally allowed to answer calls we make to them on their government-issue phones. The story's that it will get even worse after Friday - the Office of Management and Budget has allowed a few agencies to teeter forward on rollover funding, but that's done with after this week. So we'll be going in November on the hope that things will work out then.
Here's my thought experiment: why shouldn't the Democrats demand that the Republican House pass climate change legislation or a fiscal stimulus as a condition of funding the government and raising the debt limit? If the tactic of taking the national and global economy hostage is legitimate, why shouldn't Democrats use it?
This isn't even a case where Republicans can argue the ends justify the means, a utilitarian argument they usually avoid. The ends they seek are the opposite of the ends that Democrats would seek so there's no utility-maximizing outcome, just a government shutdown and potential default. The only way to win the game is not to play - except of course for trying to win elections, a legitimate way to change the law.
One good thing about the strange fact of the Army Corps of Engineers running America's domestic flood control program is they're more likely to operate during a government shutdown, so we were able to do a little negotiation at yesterday's district board meeting. Not sure if it'll be interesting, but I'm attaching below a clip where I tried unsuccessfully to pin down one of their experts on an environmental issue. For decades we've allowed trees and bushy vegetation to grow on our levees along streams, incorporating them into our riparian system and providing important benefits to endangered fish. Recently the Corps has been changing that.
I think he's truly trying to be helpful, but I'm not sure if I failed to ask the right question or if it's just that it's not possible to be more specific.
(Video here, October 8, Item 2.1)
In a good news item, a request I made over the summer to increase the rebate we give people to tear out their lawns and put in low-water use landscaping is being supported by staff. Some of our local cities match our rebate and will increase their matching, so in some places we're rebating $2 per square foot of removed lawn, which will pick up a significant fraction of the cost.
Posts
11 comments:
Why even suggest that "the tactic of taking the national and global economy hostage is legitimate"?
IF that tactic were legitimate, the Dems have neither the power (control of the House) nor the political spine nor the media cover to apply it in the way you ask.
The relevant question is: with a Dem president, and massive Dem majorities in both houses of congress (2009), how, exactly, did we fail to even get a meaningful discussion of "climate change legislation or a fiscal stimulus" but, instead, now find ourselves in the current situation?
John Puma
The shere illegitimacy of the Republican tactic is what astonishes me (from half way around the world). If they do not like Obamacare, there is a legitimate way for them to get rid of it. Repeal the legislation. Didn't get enough votes in the Senate to do that? Well tough titties. That is democracy in action.
Trying to do an end run by taking the nation hostage and (in effect) threatening it with a massive economic downturn, if they do not get their way is bizarre and shows contempt for democratic rule.
One thing is clear - no thinking American can vote Republican at the next election. Doing so endorses the tactic, and make governance in America a lost art.
Sadly, I do not think the fact that no thinking American can vote Republican after this is likely to impact their vote.
John Puma: "The relevant question is: with a Dem president, and massive Dem majorities in both houses of congress (2009), how, exactly, did we fail to even get a meaningful discussion of "climate change legislation or a fiscal stimulus" but, instead, now find ourselves in the current situation?
"
Ah, that's an easy one. First, the election of a black, Dem. President mobilized the far right, while the electorate that elected said president decided to pat itself on the back and take the next 4 years off.
The Koch bros. provided plenty of cash for the Koch suckers to suck, and voila, the Teabaggers, fighting for their freedom to be screwed by said Bros. in orifices they didn't realize they had.
Also, the 2008 vote came prior to the 2010 redistricting, so we still had a fairly large proportions of DINOs who opposed any measure that they felt didn't create a "healthy bidness climate". This is also why we have ACA rather than a more sensible single-payer plan.
Now the Rethuglican state houses are busy making sure that the next time the Obama voters try to go to the polls in the 2016 election, they will be unceremoniously turned away.
All this assumes the US will still be having national elections by 2016. That is a proposition I wouldn't bet on at this point.
Obama "I will not negotiate." The Republicans have made a good faith offer all the Democrats have to concede is delay the individual mandate one year like King Obama did by edict for corporations. If King Obama and stupid Democrats agree to that the government reopens.
Meanwhile having park rangers remove handles from water fountains along hiking trails and barring military veterans from open spaces is not a good way to endear the electorate to your position. Well only selected spaces WWII and Vietnam Memorials blocked, WWI memorial not. hmm wonder why?
a_ray your conspiracy theories and projected accusations of racism are always a good laugh.
1
Didn't you see this coming? It's not a hostage situation, it's a suicide attack.
Some economist on NPR yesterday said the 'Sequester' agreement between Democrats and Republicans was based on their belief that nobody could possibly want that so they'd make it a consequence of inaction and force themselves to act. When that happened I couldn't believe it -- and it worked out just as the suicide caucus hoped.
Oh, please, please don't throw me in that brier patch, said Br'er Rabbit. Because that's what he wanted.
Oh, no, please please don't deny the government funds. That would be like drowning it in the bathtub, to these people.
http://www.trbimg.com/img-52451893/turbine/la-na-tt-government-by-extortion-20130926-001/600
Personally I view it as a teapot-given opportunity for people who don't believe in regulations to dump toxics places they'd be prevented from doing that if the regulators were paying attention. It's taking the watchdogs off duty -- a brief opportunity to pollute.
Watch for it.
"1",
The Rethuglicans are threatening to do more damage to the US economy than Al Quaeda could ever dream of doing. You don't negotiate with terrorists.
a_ray,
Wrong as usual. Why can Obama simply ignore the law in regards to the Health Care Act? All he has to do is agree to give individuals the same treatment he has given to corporations and voila an agreement will be made and the government shutdown will be avoided. Equal protection? Equal application of the law to all?
As was already mentioned if someone wants to change the ACA they need to pass that change through both houses of Congress and have the President sign it. But being a liberal you are fine with Obama ruling by edict and instructing government employees to be vindictive on the citizens.
Those are the facts regardless of your cutesy names and wild conspiracy theories.
1
" It's taking the watchdogs off duty -- a brief opportunity to pollute."
Possibly since Obama's focus is barricading open areas on land and sea, blocking access to private institutions that lease Federal land, removing seniors from their second homes, because they lease Federal land. Obama is much too focused on political theater to pay attention to important things, such as the one you raise about regulators.
1
"The relevant question is: with a Dem president, and massive Dem majorities in both houses of congress (2009), how, exactly, did we fail to even get a meaningful discussion of "climate change legislation or a fiscal stimulus" but, instead, now find ourselves in the current situation? "
Because the Democrats only care about building more dependency on Federal Government to keep/increase their power. That is their only goal hence Obamacare. How people continue to believe what Democrats say without considering the above context is amazing.
1
Who needs laws when you got the EPA
Obama: "I will not negotiate " (...on Obamacare is what he meant).
Normally, Obama doesn't negotiate anyway: just gives away the farm (buildings, tractor, cows, cats corn, even farmer's wife and kids) without any concessions whatever from the Republicans, Before the Republicans even ask for anything, in fact.
But in this case, I he almost certainly WILL negotiate (perhaps not on Obamacare, but rest assured, he WILL make some concession(s), ostensibly to end the shutdown, if he hasn't done so already)
Of course, Obama will spin whatever concession(s) he makes as a "win" for the Democrats and they, in turn, will all lap it right up like it was warm milk.
"Let's make a Deal" with Obama as host is as predictable as it is pathetic.
The Republicans always walk away with the brand new car and never (ever) end up with the goat behind door number 3 (that always goes to the Democrats)
Post a Comment