The Pending 2013 Obamacare, oops 2015 Planned Parenthood Gov't Shutdown: It's 1995 All Over Again & What It Means To You

THIS SAYS IT ALL
THIS SAYS IT ALL | Source

PRELUDE TO THE 2013; NO NOW 2015 FISCAL DISASTER

ON NOVEMBER 14, 1995 THE DEPT OF THE AIR FORCE told me not to come to work; they had no money to pay me; but I was allowed to come back to work on the 19th. Then on December 16, 1995, I was told to stay home again; this time my furlough lasted until January 3, 1996. This was a result of the Conservative wing of the Republican Party refusing to negotiate with the Democrats and President Bill Clinton over budget issues. In the end, Conservatives caved-in, finally negotiating a deal which only gave them part of their demands, rather than the whole enchilada they thought they had a mandate for with the "Contract With America".

[Author’s note – I try hard to remain pragmatic in my analyses and commentary, meaning I don’t like taking the side on each and every issue. Instead, I take the side where the facts, history, and logic direct me. Often, as in this piece, when the issue is financial, I end up on the left-of-center because extremist fiscal positions have taken control of the Republican Party since 1995. And, history has shown time-and-again, that extreme positions, whether they come from the Right or the Left, are impractical and cannot work in the real world. What we are seeing today is a wonderful example.]

Having said that, the fiscal year ended September 30, 1995, and the Conservatives of Congress had not passed a budget (compare this to today’s Conservative rhetoric about the Democratic Senate) nor the required appropriations. Therefore, Congress passed a continuing resolution (CR) to fund the government until November 13, 1995. While Clinton and the Conservatives both wanted to cut the budget, they wanted to do it in different ways. Each also had differing assumptions about economic growth, medical inflation rates, and anticipated revenues; it turned out Clinton’s estimates were closer to reality. Clinton wanted to focus on improving infrastructure, R & D, public health, education, the environment, and Medicare (the same thing President Obama has been championing sense 2009); all of which cost money in places the opposition didn't want to spend it. On the other hand, the Conservatives wanted to make Medicare more expensive (and therefore less costly to taxpayers), by raising Part B rates; make it harder or impossible for the U.S. Treasury to dip into federal trust funds to avoid a borrowing crisis; limit appeals by death-row inmates; make it harder to issue health, safety and environmental regulations; and commit the President to a seven-year balanced budget. Further, during the budget cutting fight, Speaker Gingrich threatened to make the U.S. default on its financial obligations by not raising the debt ceiling; sound familiar?

By November 19, 1995, both sides agreed to try to hammer out a balanced budget deal; so another CR was passed set to expire on December 15, 1995 and back to work I went. December 15 came and went with no resolution and, you guessed it, I was out of a job again until a compromise was finally reached in very early 1996.

HE DOESN"T CARE WHAT IT COSTS
HE DOESN"T CARE WHAT IT COSTS | Source

A PYRRHIC VICTORY

WHAT THIS CONSERVATIVE "GAME-OF-CHICKEN" accomplished in 1996 was little in the way of the large-scale cuts the Conservatives were seeking and higher taxes. They did, however, get a promise to balance the budget in seven years, which Clinton, the Democrats, and the Republicans. This didn't happen, however, through the Conservative panacea of cost cutting, but through an expanding economy.

The government shutdown accomplished two other results which Conservatives incessantly accuse Democrats of doing … it added $1.4 billion to the national debt and it chopped maybe ½ a percent from economic growth according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)!!! If you take inflation into account, Conservatives added almost $2.1 billion (2013 $) to the national debt; but you didn’t hear them complaining about it then, that is for sure.

Flash forward to 2013 (yes, the shutdown finally did happen after this Hub was orignially published) and 2015] what do we find once more ... conservatives, such as Senator and presidential contender Ted Cruz, wanting to shutdown the government for a third time regardless of the upward pressure on the national debt and downward force on GDP Oh yeah, the next election in 1996 saw the Democrats gaining back a eight of the seats they lost the previous time out. That was then; today the situation in 2013 and again in 2015 is much different.

WHAT MIGHT THE COST BE IN 2013 - 2014?

IF THE CONSERVATIVES ARE SUCCESSFUL in shutting down the federal government again, and the length is the same three to four weeks, then the CBO thinks that, at a minimum, the GDP can be expected to lose 1.4 percentage points! The cost would, be no less than the $2.1 billion (2013 $) that was experienced the last time, common sense suggest it may be twice that this time. This is so, in my opinion, because of the Conservative opposition to President Obama’s economic policies and their total political dedication to, first stopping his reelection (failing miserably in the process), and then second, to destroying his second term; a dedication so strong that it appears to be at the exclusion of all else keeping the economy weak. Further, because of this weakness in the economy, some economists are now suggesting such a shutdown could push America back into another recession when you couple it with the impending international disaster from the Conservative manufactured debt-ceiling crises occurring a few days later. If this occurs, the cost could go up into the trillions!

NATIONAL PARKS - CLOSED!
NATIONAL PARKS - CLOSED! | Source

WHAT WILL A THREE TO FOUR WEEK SHUT DOWN MEAN TO YOU ... PERSONALLY?

SO, WHAT CAN YOU PERSONALLY EXPECT if the federal government shuts down for an extended period? Quite a lot! The degree of discomfort will depend on your job, but virtually all Americans will feel its effect one way or another.

  • The one thing that won’t be affected is Obamacare!! Its implementation is not dependent on Congressional budgets. Obamacare’s continuing operations use appropriated funds, but its implementing funds have already been appropriated.
  • The people most affected by a shutdown will be the million or so federal workforce, of course. Their paychecks will stop. Now, to be fair, there has never been a case where we weren't paid retroactively, but for those four weeks, we had to rely on our own resources or unemployment. Equally hurting will be the millions of private contractors whose pay also stops for that period of time; again unemployment will take a hit, but their loss of pay was, and will be, permanent. It is never certain, of course, whether history will repeat itself and Congress will authorize back-pay for civil servants; I wouldn't hold my breath.
  • All you gun lovers out there, forget about getting a gun permit anytime soon, or a background check completed. Just consider the backlog that is going to be created.
  • How about everyone who likes to travel? Don’t try to get a passport, you won’t. Don’t try to go to a National Park; all 368 will be closed to you. If you work in the airline and tourism industry, prepare for layoffs; they were hurt badly in 1995-1996.
  • For those of you in the military don’t count on your mid-October paycheck showing up, it won’t. Unlike civil servants however, you will be paid in IOUs, redeemable once the Congress funds the government once again. Further, change of stations will be delayed, medical offerings scaled back, facility and weapons maintenance suspended, thereby reducing military readiness (I watched this happen in the big drawdown during the 1990’s from my position in the Pentagon)
  • Small businesses and home buyers , you think it is tough getting a loan now, wait until the government shuts down, put your hopes and plans on hold for awhile.
  • If you live in D.C.. expect to see all city services, including garbage pick-up, come to halt. You probably know this already, but for the rest of you, Congress must appropriate Washington D.C.’s annual budget
  • If you have savings that is dependent on the stock market, get ready to watch it shrink again. While the shutdown will drag the market down and decrease the value of your savings, when tied with the debt ceiling crisis, you can have fun watch it plummet!
  • Me, I turn 66 in Oct, guess what I am probably not going to get in November, my first Social Security check. Maybe not in December either because of the backlog that will be created. However, last time around, President Clinton did keep enough Social Security workers on the payroll to process regular SS checks; just not start new benefits; Obama is expected to do the same.

SHE KNOWS NOT WHAT SHE ASKS FOR!
SHE KNOWS NOT WHAT SHE ASKS FOR! | Source

EPILOGUE

IT WAS IN 1995 WHEN CONGRESS started its downward slide into oblivion in terms of public acceptance of its ability to govern. If they do it again in 2013, then if polls could go negative, they probably would. American’s, when they visit other countries, probably avoid talking about the U.S. in order to avoid the snickering resulting from our Hatfield and McCoy style of politics; it is downright embarrassing! We have no right to call ourselves a “great” nation when we put ourselves and the world at risk in order proves a political point such as the Conservative wing of the Republican Party has been doing since 1995. I am not saying the Liberal wing of the Democratic Party have not carried things too far in their day, but I do not believe there has been a time in American history, even in the dark days of the Jefferson-Adams battles, did it get to this level of self-destructiveness.

CURIOUS MINDS WOULD LIKE TO KNOW

HOW MUCH WOULD AN EXTENDED FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHUT DOWN HURT YOU?

  • NOT AT ALL
  • A LITTLE
  • SOME
  • IT IS GOING TO HURT, BUT NOT FINANCIALLY
  • IT IS GOING TO HURT FINANCIALLY
  • IT WILL DEVASTATE ME AND MY FAMILY
  • I AM NOT SURE
See results without voting

DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY #1

Are You

  • Female?
  • Male?
See results without voting

DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY #2

Politically Speaking, Do You Find Yourself Agreeing With ...

  • Sometimes The RIGHT and Sometimes The LEFT, Depending On The Issue?
  • Something Else, None Of The Other Choices?
  • The LEFT More Often Than the RIGHT?
  • The RIGHT More Often Than the LEFT?
See results without voting

© 2013 My Esoteric

More by this Author


5 comments

alexsaez1983 3 years ago

I think it's sick that Conservatives care more about their personal vendetta at Obama than they do with the well being of their country. These racist, fascist hicks should get their priorities straight instead of spitting rhetoric about communism. They're like a spoiled child who didn't get the candy they wanted, so they're throwing a fit to pressure their parents to buy it for them.


bradmasterOCcal profile image

bradmasterOCcal 24 months ago from Orange County California

My Esoteric

Here we go again.

House leaders unveiled a $1.1 trillion spending bill Tuesday night that would avert a partial government shutdown while delaying a fight over President Obama's immigration actions until early 2015.

The GOP-led House Appropriations Committee released the plan, which would keep most of the government funded through September 2015, following days of backroom negotiations.

The government technically runs out of money at midnight Thursday. The narrow window raises the likelihood that lawmakers will have to pass a stopgap spending bill to buy time.

======

The search for the guilty, and blaming one party, the same party doesn't solve the problem.

The US congress as run under the guideliness of the US Constitution has failed, and it just didn't start failing. This happened over the last several decades.

The two political party system in the US puts the US in two different directions all the time. There is no crossroads for compromise, or bipartisanship.

The founders of the constitution had no idea how badly their new created system would fail over time.

They failed also by not setting a structure for the Supreme Court. That court as formed and operated has failed the people of the US, and it has eroded the foundations of the constitutional by following politics rather than the constitution.

As the power and scope of the federal government increases, the need for the states goes away, as it becomes redundant, and in opposition to each other. There are states, but their unification is not as states, but in abdication to the federal government that bypasses the powers of the states, with the Supremacy Clause of the constitution.

Thanks

There is no King Solomon to solve this grave problem.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 24 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

BM - "The search for the guilty, and blaming one party, the same party doesn't solve the problem."

ME - If you identify the guilty, get rid of the guilty (don't vote them in next time), problem solved.

BM - "... and it just didn't start failing. This happened over the last several decades."

ME - you will have to give me a plurality of anecdotes, or one good study, that supports your assertion.

BM - "They failed also by not setting a structure for the Supreme Court. ..."

ME - Agreed, they didn't foresee the degree of partisanship in the Justices. I wonder if average age played into their formulation. Do you think they expected a faster turnover through death and disease?

BM - "... but in abdication to the federal government that bypasses the powers of the states, with the Supremacy Clause of the constitution."

ME - There have, over the centuries, been many a SC decision which sided with the states, striking down the Medicaid part of Obamacare being one of the latest examples.

The federal government has a responsibility to the People who created it, not to the States. The States have the same responsibility to the People who created it. The federal gov't has national interests and the state has local interests. The point of the Constitution was to "Create a more Perfect Union"; emphasis on Union.

When a state's actions run counter to the national interest, such as not educating its citizens to a reasonable standard, then the federal gov't has a duty to step in (in education, it needs to set minimum standards). To not do so hurts the Union.


bradmasterOCcal profile image

bradmasterOCcal 24 months ago from Orange County California

My Esoteric

You wrote

BM - "The search for the guilty, and blaming one party, the same party doesn't solve the problem."

ME - If you identify the guilty, get rid of the guilty (don't vote them in next time), problem solved.

bmOC

The problem is the party loyalty, and that means that the guilty stay in office forever.

Problem not solved until the parties become bipartisan.

--------

You wrote

BM - "... and it just didn't start failing. This happened over the last several decades."

ME - you will have to give me a plurality of anecdotes, or one good study, that supports your assertion.

bmOC

Look at the decline of the US since the oil crisises in the seventies, we lost manufacturing, and we lost our superiority in the auto industry.

911 was a repetition of the same problems that allowed Pearl Harbor to happen .

As for studies, we have had them about food, and health for over fifty years, and it turns out most of it was wrong.

--------------

BM - "They failed also by not setting a structure for the Supreme Court. ..."

ME - Agreed, they didn't foresee the degree of partisanship in the Justices. I wonder if average age played into their formulation. Do you think they expected a faster turnover through death and disease?

BMOC

I think they didn't anticipate how the SC justices would be influenced by politics. That was the whole purpose of a lifetime job. Secondly, don't give the creation of the structure for the SC to the Congress. It is congress that is to be checked.

-------------------

You wrote

BM - "... but in abdication to the federal government that bypasses the powers of the states, with the Supremacy Clause of the constitution."

ME - There have, over the centuries, been many a SC decision which sided with the states, striking down the Medicaid part of Obamacare being one of the latest examples.

BMOC

Where were they when SS and Medicare were created. Where were they when the Income Tax Amendment was passed under suspicious circumstances. Where were they when the Interstate Commerce Clause was misused by them to expand the scope of the Federal Government at the expense of the States powers.

These are just a few.

Yes, the SC determines the law of the land, but bad decisions are still enforced.

The Patriot Act was another abuse of the constitution not checked by the SC. This act should only have been allowed in a time of a declared war, and no wars have been constitutionally been declared since WWII.

------------

You wrote

The federal government has a responsibility to the People who created it, not to the States. The States have the same responsibility to the People who created it. The federal gov't has national interests and the state has local interests. The point of the Constitution was to "Create a more Perfect Union"; emphasis on Union.

BMOC

Rhetoric, no substance.

There is no United States, today there is only an Obese, tax generating, flatulent, gridlock Federal Government that has taken over the powers of the states. The states have to get their share of the revenue from the people from the whims of the federal government. If they don't act the way the federal government demands them to act, the federal government withholds large amounts of money.

The tenth amendment only gets the states the powers that are left to it after the federal government invokes the Supremacy Clause. It is the tenth amendment that gives the responsibility of the people to the states, and not the federal government.

Marriage was given to the states, but the federal government made marital status one the classes in their federal income tax code. This is clearly an instance of unequal protection, as is the different marginal tax rates.

--------------

You wrote

When a state's actions run counter to the national interest, such as not educating its citizens to a reasonable standard, then the federal gov't has a duty to step in (in education, it needs to set minimum standards). To not do so hurts the Union.

BMOC

How has the federal government helped improve education.

In the 1960s, they mandated busing, and today what benefit that have on the performance of education. Only, a negative one.

The influx of foreigners coming from Asia have been the only real improvements in education performance, not anything that has been done by the federal government.

Money has never been the answer for improving education, and yet that is the big issue in Congress.

To improve education, you need to severely reduce the use of drugs by school age children. Also, cracking down on the street gangs, as well as coming up with a 21st Century paradigm for the curriculum in K-12. Producing high school diplomas, or even college degrees is not a direct correlation to providing for getting a good paying job.

Education needs to bond with business to develop those skills, and knowledge that business is willing to pay a good salary to its job applicants.

National Health Insurance does nothing to improve the quality of care. How can adding thirty or forty million more people to it give any improvement?

The insurance industry, the pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, doctors, nurses, technical staff, medical schools, the FDA, medical patent law, and laws regulating them need to be radically changed to improve quality of care, just to name a few changes.

To win the war on disease, the profit motivation has to be replace by the defense motivation. The tapped out NASA agency had the right idea of the race for space, but it is failing today. But, it might work on finding medical cures for major diseases.

It has been 55 years since the Salk Vaccine, and none since then.

The problem with the federal government finding a solution to generate medical cures is because it is paid off by the for profit multibillion dollars businesses to not burst their golden egg laying strategy.

========

Thanks


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 24 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

I guess I should have asked, "what is failure" in your opinion. The way you frame it, it sounds like the total collapse of government governing, e.g., what we have had since 2011 when the current crop of Right-wingers got in. If that is the case, government did govern in the decades preceding this one.

As to "Look at the decline of the US since the oil crisises in the seventies, we lost manufacturing, and we lost our superiority in the auto industry." being signs of government failure, I am not sure I agree. I see it more like business failing at what they do.

In 1991, I listened to a "futurist" give us a lecture at Air War College. He predicted two things, 1) that the U.S. will become a more service based nation because that is how things progress as a country becomes more developed, and 2) that "the sharing of information" will totally alter how those at the top can control what information gets out which will lead to a new paradigm of how the powerful and the masses interact with each other.

BM - "Problem not solved until the parties become bipartisan."

ME - like the way they were prior to 1995; that was when bipartisanship began disappearing from the scene, reaching its zenith in 2011.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working