The Fiscal Cliff

[Uncle Ted]

San Juan County leader plans to remove barricades, reopen Lake Powell

SAN JUAN COUNTY — Several leaders of San Juan County said they're going to move the barricades implemented by the government shutdown and let people back onto Lake Powell.


Commissioner Phil Lyman posted information about his plan on his Facebook page Monday.


"The plan is to peacefully remove the barriers to places like Lake Powell, Natural Bridges, Canyonlands and Hovenweep and allow visitors to enjoy their places," Lyman wrote. "We are not going to sit idle while the Federal Government destroys the local economy! They are spending more money to keep people out than it would cost to let people in."
[...]

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=27174410&nid...cid=featured-1

"Mr. Obama... tear down this wall!"

[Omaha 680]

LOL. Moody's are so dumb!

[Shaka]

Triplet's girl crush Nadine with the expert coverage of the beginning of the uprising.

Viva La Revolución!

[SandYFan]

At this point, I'm sick of reading and listening to weeks and weeks of debt limit talk and am sort of morbidly curious to see the great calamities that will befall the nation if the ceiling isn't raised.

[calicoug]

I don't know why Boner and the other republicans aren't pounding this over and over again showing the hypocricy of the democrats. I think I heard the Joe Biden voted against raising the debt ceiling numerous times.

Because you can find quotes by them and other Republican leaders talking about how important it is to raise the debt ceiling.

You will find lots of hypocritical statements on the debt ceiling on both sides. You won't find an instance (other than last time) where a party has seriously threatened breaching the debt ceiling or where the vote was ever even remotely in doubt.

[calicoug]

Daily Moliere check-in: still nobody think it's possible? Weird.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...d-terrify-you/

[calicoug]

And I know how much you guys like polls. You'll be pleased to note that the Gallup poll today shows the Republican party now at the lowest approval rating... ever... for either party.

A new milestone! Nice job, guys.

[Moliere]

Daily Moliere check-in: still nobody think it's possible? Weird.

Moody's says you and Obama are just fear mongerers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...b-327c5c814d82

” We believe the government would continue to pay interest and principal on its debt even in the event that the debt limit is not raised, leaving its creditworthiness intact,” the memo says. “The debt limit restricts government expenditures to the amount of its incoming revenues; it does not prohibit the government from servicing its debt. There is no direct connection between the debt limit (actually the exhaustion of the Treasury’s extraordinary measures to raise funds) and a default.

I hold to my statement that we are not close.

[creekster]

Daily Moliere check-in: still nobody think it's possible? Weird.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...d-terrify-you/

I thought it was silly to look at markets to assess this likelihood? Someone around here said that.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Daily Moliere check-in: still nobody think it's possible? Weird.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...d-terrify-you/

That's funny, the 60 and 90 day notes have half the rates now that they had last year. People must have really been worrying about default last year too.

And during the two weeks after Obama's inauguration in 2009 the 30 day rates went from .04 (inauguration day) all the way up to .28. Must have been more worries about default there too.

[Uncle Ted]

And I know how much you guys like polls. You'll be pleased to note that the Gallup poll today shows the Republican party now at the lowest approval rating... ever... for either party.

A new milestone! Nice job, guys.

That's nothing... Congress, as a whole, has an approval rating of a whopping 5% (83% disapprove). Nice job, guys!


Time to fire everyone and let the Libertarians take over.

[calicoug]

I thought it was silly to look at markets to assess this likelihood? Someone around here said that.

Not what I said. I said citing the market as evidence that something would or would not happen was silly. Citing it to show whether people think something might happen is different. The absence of movement doesn't indicate "nobody believes" something might happen but movement does suggest at least many believe something might happen.

[calicoug]

That's funny, the 60 and 90 day notes have half the rates now that they had last year. People must have really been worrying about default last year too.

And during the two weeks after Obama's inauguration in 2009 the 30 day rates went from .04 (inauguration day) all the way up to .28. Must have been more worries about default there too.

Huh. Apparently you think the threat of default is the only thing that causes the market to move. Look at the movement of the one month t bill rate and compare it to others. Then explain why that is happening without referring to the debt ceiling. Good luck.

[Uncle Ted]

5371310-Boehner-Video-Who-is-Obama-Willing-to-Negotiate.jpg

[VirginiaCougar]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3140[/ATTACH]

Madison noted when asked what the most important aspect of the Legislative branch was in his new system of government - he said there were three things it needed to succeed: "compromise, compromise, and compromise." We obviously have little of that these days, as we all know.

In responding to this and a few related posts, I am in no way absolving the administration or Obama. They are all playing politics, a particularly nasty brand of politics. There are no white knights in this sad political story.

The first government shutdown occurred in the late 1970s. It was considered an unconscionable act prior to that - for most of our history it was antithetical to the American Constitutional process. Even during our most heated debates in American politics, and we have had a few. Since that time, it has become more frequent and has been used by both parties. It's increasing use mirrors a growing breakdown in Congressional debate, lack of compromise and radicalization at the extremes of both political parties (a key point in The Economist article posted previously). That isn't what the Founder's intended. With these radicalizations, we move further and further away from initial Constitutional intent, well described by Madison and others.

Personally, I think its use by either party is abusive and harmful to the mechanisms established by the Constitution to solve differences of opinion. Forced shutdowns do "hold hostage" the entire US government and our financial standing. They are not normal nor Constitutional means of legislating. Whichever party or subsection of a party which uses this technique are taking the approach that it is OK to risk everything to force concession on an issue they could not acquire through the expected Constitutional legislative processes. We are lucky that none of these have caused much harm, as they certainly have the potential of doing so.

ACA is a messy piece of legislation and may be as bad as some in the GOP argue. However, It has passed Congress, it has been signed by the President, and it has been found Constitutional by the Supreme Court. If it is that bad, then yes - people who oppose it should continue to discuss the act, but in ways expressly defined and expected by the Constitution.

This shutdown, the first in nearly 20 years does belong directly to the tea party members in the GOP. The internal debates within the GOP, with large elements of the party pushing back against the Tea Party faction were fierce, with extremely harsh things said privately. I've heard some of the things that were said to each other - I've not heard stuff like that within the same party. Some of that fight did actually spill out publicly and was covered by a few of the better media outlets.

In the end, Boehner and the GOP overall went with the Tea Party on the shutdown for two reasons. First, is the so-called "Hastert Rule" which is that the GOP won't bring a measure (in this case a clean Continuing Resolution [CR]) to the floor if it doesn't have a majority of GOP votes. Publicly splitting a party through a vote is a well-known historical way of ended your Speakership.

The second is that there is an ongoing battle underway for control of the GOP. So called "mainstream" GOP folks are scared of the rising Tea Party folks, who in the post "Citizens United" ruling have nearly unlimited funds. Boehner quite honestly is afraid of a big public showdown with that Tea Party faction as he isn't sure who would win. Folks like Ted Cruz and Mike Lee are trying to capture the party and transform it ideologically from its earlier "big tent" positions to a stronger Conservative/Libertarian party. They see the shutdown as a mechanism of doing that. This is exactly what they wanted. That is what they got - they own it.

So here we are, with the shutdown. Government shutdown is a government shutdown. It shuts down all but defined essential government services and activities. Many former students and friends are now sitting at home, not earning a living.

What has happened since then is some very nasty politics. Distasteful stuff that was part of the reason I left the active politics side of things back in the 90s. You could see what was coming, even back then in Utah.

Since the shutdown, the GOP has been purposefully trying to change the dialogue to place the blame for the shutdown (which their tea party faction chose to do) off of them and to the President. Even if distasteful, I understand the strategy. Tea Party Republicans specifically have organized and planned a number of the monument events, for the very effect they got. I find it particularly offensive to use honored WWII vets in their 80-90s for such political purposes. But that series of events sure got the coverage they wanted. That is what has happened in a number of similar events/disputes about what should be opened. Most have been rather strategically planned for effect. Ideological media have done their part to spin these closures/actions one way or the other depending on which extreme they are on.

What specifically they are trying to do is to force the Obama administration to open all the key parts of government they want (theoretically the shutdown impacts all aspects of government). This also makes sense because if they are successful, they win. It would put all the pressure on Obama and the shutdown will be an effective political tool. They can sit out the rest of the shutdown until the Obama Administration gives in if they are successful in this process. The key stuff will be open/accessible. If they win, they also effectively send a message as to who owns the GOP now. That would be a powerful message that would have effects for the next couple of Presidential and Congressional election cycles.

On Obama’s side, the only way to stop the shutdown as an effective tool is to make the shutdown as painful as possible. To make it really painful. Some of the criticisms of what is closed aren't fair - in the post 9/11 environment, security at federal sites is a very different thing that it was in the 1990s or earlier. This is particularly true on the mall, and so I get that many more things are closed than previously. Many of the so-called "private sites" also have federal security/protective responsibilities as well.

Now, as I said, I don't want to let Obama off the hook. Because he is doing his best to make the shutdown painful. Again, strategically it is the only way to make using shutdown as a political tool ineffective. While some of the closures were simply procedural and not specifically planned by the Administration, others were purposefully planned. It is a nasty approach, unbecoming of what our politics should be like.

Personally, I don't believe shutdowns as a political tool should EVER be rewarded. It sends all the wrong messages to members of Congress who don't need any help these days. It makes it harder and harder for us to address real issues such as the deficit, social security, etc. The whole thing is a nasty and perverse game of Russian Roulette, with the only difference being the promise that if you don't submit, the other side will shoot everybody - we all lose.