The Human Costs of a Government Shut Down

Many of my regular readers know that I lived in the D.C. area for many years; close to 20 in fact.  I recently moved back to my home state in New England.  For many months after first moving here I had been told many times by someone I had left the bubble and was experiencing the real world.  This discussion was mostly referring to the effects of the economy.

It isn't that I never knew that I lived in a bubble while in Northern Virginia.  For instance, I knew that finding a job in that little area of the world was much easier than many others around the country.  The unemployment rate in the D.C. area was only around 5% even when the rest of the country was well over 8%.  There were foreclosures, layoffs, and the like in the area; but they were able to absorb it better.  Most people got through it without a huge problem.  There are jobs available in the area, maybe not great paying jobs, but you can find something.  Not so much in the state I am in now.  Jobs, even just part-time, are hard to come by.  I went to a very large mall on Friday evening and the place was dead.  That isn't the case at Tyson's Mall just outside of D.C., the place was almost always busy.

So I have kind of a unique perspective on the looming government shut down.  I am conservative and I want to see Obamacare repealed.  I want to see government spending under control, I want to see waste done away with.  But I also know the real human side to a government shut down and how it will affect everyday people.  Many of these people don't work for the government.  They work for private contractors and they clean the floors at the Smithsonian's.  I don't know how much they make, but I doubt it is in the range of six figures.  They also work for the cafe's that are around the government buildings.  I know that not everyone that works on the hill makes a big salary.  Many of the people who work on the Hill are young, passionate people who make just enough to live on and enjoy a few things around the D.C. area, but not much more.  Now they will get back pay if the government shuts down.  Or at least that has been the pattern in the past, although there is no law that states that has to happen.  That will take an act of congress.

About 50% of the Department of Defense are civilian employees who work for government contractors.  They get no back pay, unless of course it was the contracts to start with.  I know many government contractors and not one of them told me that such a provision exists in their contracts.  They will get no back pay, and remember, they are already living on shortened hours due to sequestration.

I also know that there are hot dog vendors that have nothing to do with the government except that a big part of their business depends on people who do.  Babysitters, dog walkers, restaurant staff, hotel staff, vendors who sell T-shirts and trinkets.  There are National Parks all over the country that have campgrounds and hotels that depend on the traffic that those parks bring.  There are also federal buildings all over the country, not just in D.C., the businesses that surround those buildings will feel exactly the same thing, possibly on a smaller scale.

I am all for making cuts to the government, but I am also very much aware that those cuts have to be done in a methodical way.  We can't just wake up tomorrow and say shut it all down and act like that won't have a rippling effect to people who are just like you and me, struggling to make ends meet.

This is a failure of both parties.  These people knew when these dates were coming, and instead of working to avoid these issues, they forge ahead in order to score cheap political points that ends up hurting everyday people.  Many of which who pay no attention to politics, more than likely some of which don't even bother to vote.  They are just living their lives.

The GOP may be able to get a one year delay on the individual mandate.  I am not holding my breath on it, but it is in the realm of possibility.  To me they should be going after spending cuts, because at the end of the day Obamacare isn't going anywhere until it is fully repealed.  That ain't happening until you have a congress that is willing to pass it and a president that is willing to sign it.  The earliest that will happen is in January of 17.

My point is say we close the government down for say a month trying to force Obama to give, at best, a one year delay on the mandate, just remember, that there will be people who won't be able to pay their rent or their credit card bills.  The restaurants and delis that depend on the government employees to stay open may end up closing if they can't make up the income from another area.  Wait staff at these restaurants won't make their normal salaries or could potentially lose their jobs.

It is very easy to say that the average person won't even know that the government shut down when you aren't one of these people.  When it isn't your livelihood that it is at stake.  For those that think it is worth it to prove a point about Obamacare, that is primarily mandatory spending by the way, just think of those people.  If you are in the D.C. area, put your money where your mouth is and go and visit some of these businesses, they will need it.

Call me a Rino if you will, but as I said, I have a unique perspective from living and working in the D.C. area for so long.  I have a Facebook friend who is a government contractor, she just got back to work after having a baby.  She is vet who served her country and pays hers taxes.  She is also a person who doesn't have a great deal of money in the pot to pay her bills during a long shut down, and she isn't alone.   There will be a human cost to this shut down.  Even if you agree with it, don't ignore that these people exist.  Just remember, these people are no different from you and me, everyday people who work hard and are getting a raw deal by our very dysfunctional government.

When Party and Principles Collide

Ron Suskind's new book describes the White House as a hostile place for women to work. One such charge came from Anita Dunn, Mao enthusiast. Dunn made a comment to The Washington Post denying that she had ever said anything of the kind and told Mr. Suskind the polar opposite by telling him "point-blank" that it not true. Apparently the interview was taped and that tape has been played in part to the some reporters over at The Washington Post.


While it is sort of understandable that you would want to protect the president and leader of the party from embarrassment, how far do you compromise your principles to do so? The democratic party in general, and progressives in particular, spend a great deal of time about talking about "fairness".

It isn't fair that woman get paid less, it isn't fair that someone may be "punished" with a baby that they had not planned on, the billionaires don't pay enough taxes, and on the list goes. For some reason that they are unable to explain to me they seem to believe that government can actually make the world fair, a feat that God himself is unable to pull off.

What does it say when Ms. Dunn puts Obama's presidency ahead of the principle of fair treatment for women in the workplace? I have never personally believed that Obama is truly a principled man. He worships at the altar of big government. By worshipping at said alter the very last thing it represents is freedom for women. Because it then gives government more control over the choices in your life. In many school systems you cannot decide for yourself what it is that your child eats for lunch. You see you are too stupid to feed your children healthy food. While I am sure that there are some people who don't understand nutritional values of food, I would venture to say that most do. But it doesn't matter, you can't make that decision yourself. They know your child better than you do.

It is very disappointing although not all surprising to learn that the people who surround President Obama are more concerned for the party than they are for the principles that they espouse on a daily basis, but have yet to shown that they themselves are willing to live by.

Hey Democrats, Show Me What You Are Made Of

There is still a great deal of buzz around the blogosphere and "new" media about how the democratic party is now kinda thinking that yes, maybe Hillary Clinton should have gotten the nomination three years ago. It was during the nomination process three years ago that I realized I had to become more politically active. I new I wasn't going to vote for either Obama or Hillary pretty early on, but I did pay attention to what was going on during the nominating process. I figured early on that whomever the winner turned out to be was going to be our next president.

I remember hearing people on the right saying "anyone but Hillary". I was saying anyone but Obama. I knew he would be disaster after reading his books (which a huge Obama fan friend sent to me, never did figure out why exactly), they scared me to death. He didn't have the resume to handle the job. But the democrats like to fall in love with their politicians. He appealed to anti-war crowd and he played the anti-Bush wave all the way to the presidency. Matter of fact, he still tries to play that card almost three years later.


I think it is pretty obvious that the tide is going against him at this point. The moderates in the party have figured out he really isn't all that interested in being a moderate. The far left in the party must be pretty unhappy as well. He didn't really fight for single payer as they wanted him to, he has continued Bush's policies for the most part when it comes to Afghanistan. He actually has increased the American foot print there, and is much more active with drones than Bush was. He has not closed Gitmo, he has pulled out of Iraq quickly enough for them, he has not done anything about the Patriot Act except prolong it. The far left has yet to (and I don't think ever will) realize that country has no desire to go where they want to take it, so they are disappointed that we are not a full-blown socialist country. They look at as giving in to republicans, when all it really is the reality that we are a center right country. We also are a country that doesn't like a great deal of change. We like our government to move more slowly.


The approval numbers just keep going down and unemployment is still high. His jobs plan has little to no chance of passing as he wants, although he has not really given anyone all the details yet, but after today's announcement that the Senate won't even taking it up until after the next recess, one can easily read the tea leaves. It ain't gonna pass.


What I can't figure out is why they haven't just reached the point that they realize the only way to save the presidency in the next election is to put up a primary opponent? I actually would respect the party so much more if they just say hey, this experiment of putting up a man who didn't have the proper qualifications for the job failed miserably and we need to move on. The man never managed a lemonade stand previously, has never had to make a payroll before, and doesn't seem to get how to create jobs. He is stuck in his ideology of remaking America, that he can't see that his vision won't work.


I still find it hard to believe that they have not done it. It wouldn't be the first time that a sitting president faced a primary challenge, both parties have done it over the years. In the end, the sitting president usually wins (I haven't done the research, it may be that they have always won), but at least someone could have tried it.


At this point I would think it is too late. It takes not just money, but it also takes organization in each state to get a primary challenge up and running. It is also too late for me to gain any respect for the party, because while I wouldn't have voted for the challenger, I would have respected the fact that they were admitting the failure and trying to do what was right for the country.

Going Mainstream? - Democrats Joining the Tea Party

An article on CNN.com featured democrats that have now aligned themselves with the tea party.  The recent poll by CNN showed that 4% of tea party attendees are democrats.  If the amount of democrats joining the movement continues to grow, the mainstream media will have to change it's narrative about them being "racists", "wingnuts", and "extremists"; at least one would think. 

"I was a card-carrying member of the ACLU, and I probably did inhale in college,"

"carried things to an extreme."

"I think we've gone too far on the side of government doing too much," Ducket said. "The Democratic Party is wanting to take care of everyone, instead of helping everybody stand on their own two feet."


A small business owner in Grand Junction, Lewis described herself as a lifelong Democrat and called the president a "phenomenal speaker." She voted for him because she "believed in what he was saying: change."

But, Lewis added, "I should've listened a lot closer when he talked about 'spreading the wealth.' "
Asked how she feels about having voted for the president, Lewis said "I feel lied to, cheated and raped."

"She regrets voting for Barack Obama,"

"A lot of the things he says sound good, until you look at the consequences of what they will do on the long term."

most of his family voted for the president but now support the Tea Party

Some Americans who say they have been sympathetic to Democratic causes in the past -- some even voted for Democratic candidates -- are angry with President Obama and his party. They say they are now supporting the Tea Party


I personally know three tea partiers who voted for President Obama; a decision that they truly regret.  They identify themselves as democrats, but feel that the democratic party has left them, not they have left the party. 

CNN contacted the DNC, they declined to comment. 

This is troubling to the democrats in an election year that could very well sway the control of congress.  I personally believe that Republicans have a very long road to hoe when it comes to the Senate, but they could very well take back the House.  This will be even more likely if Obama/Reid/Pelosi continue the by hook or by crook ways that they used to pass healthcare.  When the president's staff came out and said that Americans don't pay much attention to process, I believe this is proof that indeed they do. 

Miguel Estrada

Where were the statements from La Raza when this was going on?

When Democrats derailed a GOP Latino nominee
By: Byron YorkChief Political Correspondent05/29/09 12:05 AM EDT

Unless something entirely unforeseen happens, confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor will be a lovefest for the Democrats who run the Senate Judiciary Committee. There will be much talk about Sotomayor's historic opportunity to become the first Hispanic on the Court, about her inspiring background, and about the sterling qualifications she would bring to the job. Sotomayor will have the majority party strongly on her side, and odds are things will end happily for her.
For some Republicans, however, it will be hard to avoid thinking back a few years, to a confirmation hearing that didn't end happily at all. In 2001, President George W. Bush nominated former Justice Department lawyer Miguel Estrada to a seat on the federal courts of appeals. In that instance, as today, the nominee was was a Hispanic with a compelling story and impressive qualifications. And some of the very people who are today praising Sotomayor spent their time devising extraordinary measures to kill Estrada's chances.
Born in Honduras, Estrada came to the United States at 17, not knowing a word of English. He learned the language almost instantly, and within a few years was graduating with honors from Columbia University and heading off to Harvard Law School. He clerked for Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, was a prosecutor in New York, and worked at the Justice Department in Washington before entering private practice.
Estrada's nomination for a federal judgeship set off alarm bells among Democrats. There is a group of left-leaning organizations -- People for the American Way, NARAL, the Alliance for Justice, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the NAACP, and others -- that work closely with Senate Democrats to promote Democratic judicial nominations and kill Republican ones. They were particularly concerned about Estrada.
In November, 2001, representatives of those groups met with Democratic Senate staff. One of those staffers then wrote a memo to Democratic Sen. Richard Durbin, informing Durbin that the groups wanted to stall Bush nominees, particularly three they had identified as good targets. "They also identified Miguel Estrada as especially dangerous," the staffer added, "because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment. They want to hold Estrada off as long as possible."
It was precisely the fact that Estrada was Hispanic that made Democrats and their activist allies want to kill his nomination. They were determined to deny a Republican White House credit, political and otherwise, for putting a first-rate Hispanic nominee on the bench.
Durbin and his colleagues did as they were instructed. But they had nothing with which to kill the nomination -- no outrageous statement by Estrada, no ethical lapse, no nothing. What to do?
They brainstormed. Estrada had once worked in the Justice Department's Office of Solicitor General, right? (Appointed under the first President Bush, Estrada stayed to serve several years under Clinton.) That office decides which cases the government will pursue in the Supreme Court, right? And that process involves confidential legal memoranda, right? Well, why don't we suggest that there might be something damaging in those memos -- we have no idea whether there is or not -- and demand that they be made public?
Durbin and his colleagues knew the Bush Justice Department would insist the internal legal memos remain confidential, as they always had been. It wasn’t just the Bush Administration that thought releasing the documents was a terrible idea; all seven living former Solicitors General, Republican and Democrat, wrote a letter to Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy begging him to back off.
But the Democrats didn't back off. They had a new, very serious question to ask: What is Miguel Estrada hiding?
The answer was nothing, of course. But the strategy worked. Democrats stonewalled Estrada's nomination, and, after losing control of the Senate in 2002, they began an unprecedented round of filibusters to block an entire slate of Bush appeals-courts nominees, Estrada among them. The confirmation process ground to a halt. More than two years after his nomination was announced, Estrada, tired of what appeared to be an endless runaround, withdrew his name from consideration. Instead of being on the federal bench, he is now in private practice in Washington.
And that was how Democrats treated the last high-level Hispanic court nominee. Think about that when you watch their lovefest with Sonia Sotomayor.
Washington Examiner