Shutdown shows we may not need so much government
Published October 2, 2013
by Julie Gilstrap, The Locker Room, October 1, 2013.
The government shut down at midnight. I know this because I heard about it on the news. But I’ve gotten through nearly an entire workday and done everything that I normally do without noticing anything at all that’s changed. And that got me thinking.
The markets have been mostly up all day, and they’ve closed up – U.S., futures, most international. Clearly no one all Wall St. thinks this is a big deal. And what about the government agencies themselves? Well, I looked it up, and here is what I found.
At the Commerce Department, a little over 40,000 of its 46,000 employees have been furloughed, but commerce is still happening. Shops are open. I’m going to the grocery store after work and I don’t expect there to be any problems with my transaction.
At the Education Department, only about 200 of its 4200 employees will continue to work, but no schools closed today. Much to the chagrin of millions of children all over America, schools continued to operate as normal.
The Department of Energy will send home somewhere between 8500 and 12,000 employees, but my lights are still on, and I’m typing this on a computer that’s plugged in to my wall.
The EPA is furloughing 15,000 of its 16,000 workers, but I haven’t seen any factories spewing black smoke into the air or dumping toxins into rivers.
At the Department of Labor, fewer than 3,000 its 16,000 employees will continue to work, but I’m still at my job today. Everyone I know in the private sector is still working. Labor has gone on uninterrupted.
I could keep going. There’s a more complete list available here. But my point is this. Sure, some of these agencies do things that may be valuable. Maybe if they were all closed long enough, someone would eventually notice. But if we can send huge numbers of workers home and shut down most of the operations of multiple departments without very many people seeing any impact on their lives at all, then maybe we should rethink the resources we’re pumping into all these bureaucracies. Maybe we don’t need a federal Department of Education in order for our kids to be educated. Maybe we can conduct commerce perfectly well without paying 40,000 bureaucrats to oversee it. Maybe the EPA needs to be reined in a little bit.
Maybe a government shutdown actually provides a much needed reality check.
October 2, 2013 at 8:56 am
Richard Bunce says:
Exactly... lets hope the Republicans in Congress see this is the smaller government we have been asking for.
October 2, 2013 at 10:15 am
Hampton Brady says:
Ms. Gilstrap needs a reality check. On the other hand that would not work for her either because she lives in an echo-chamber. "One day does not make a year."
And apparently, Mr. Bunce seems to think that the way to run the strongest and best country in the world is to fund it, piece by piece and by cherry-picking the pieces he (and republicans) want to fund. Never happen.
October 2, 2013 at 10:55 am
Richard Bunce says:
The "normal" budget process funds it piece by piece with the dozen or so appropriation bills. This Country is not great because of the money the Federal government confiscates from its citizens and more often than not wastes in inefficient government bureaucracies.
October 2, 2013 at 12:20 pm
Keith Clark says:
The designation "unessential" ought to be a base amount from which Congress works on in passing annual appropriations bills. An Republicans in the House ought to push those bills to the Senate before the credit limit extension.
October 2, 2013 at 2:12 pm
TP Wohlford says:
Hampton Brady and fellow echo chamber people need to understand the conservative argument.
Harry Reid espoused the Dem talking points that I've heard since the Carter years -- that "conservative" is akin to "radical libertarian" or even "anarchist." (I might note that for the past couple of decades, radical liberals have seized that name and protested every international government event... but I digress.)
Conservatives believe in a limited form of government, which is distributed to the lowest level of government possible. This is contrary to the Liberal Dem position, which says that every woe of humanity can be solved by a big, powerful government program at the highest level possible -- up to and including the UN.
IT would be refreshing to hear a liberal actually be able to describe conservative ideas in a way the conservatives recognize them. However, that would require education (as opposed to indoctrination), an open mind, and a willingness to see beyond the latest Facebook zinger their friend posted.
October 2, 2013 at 4:21 pm
Norm Kelly says:
The Constitution calls for a LIMITED CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. Let's start there. Why are we straying so far from the founding documents? What gives Washington the idea that they can disregard the Constitution? And get away with it? Simple. The people, who control Washington, have given up control. Nature abhors a vacuum. When the people relinquished control, politicians stepped in to fill the vacuum. Naturally.
It's up to US, the citizens, to take control back. It would be nice to think this is what the Republicans in the House have in mind. Giving control back to the people, where it belongs, is NOT the intention of the Democrats in the Senate, NOT the intention of the King who chooses to violate any law he wants, and certainly NOT the socialists who are working hard to protect the gains in Washington. This shutdown may be the right first step in US taking back control.
Let's look at some things logically. I know, something most politicians and every Democrat has trouble with, but we'll do it anyway.
The 'limited central government' has 46 THOUSAND employees in the Commerce Department. This number is AT LEAST double what it should be. Cutting the department by 23THOUSAND employees is step 1; reducing it's budget by half is also called for.
The Education Department has 4200 employees. I bet that could be reduced to less than 3000 without anyone noticing. A corresponding cut in it's budget would be a good place to start. Why is education a central government issue anyway? Perhaps this department should be eliminated in it's entirety and control for schools moved back to the states where it BELONGS!
The Department of Energy, which does very little to enhance the energy situation in this country, should be reduced also. They have 12THOUSAND employees. This cold be reduced by about 8THOUSAND and not only would no one notice, but our energy picture would probably be much improved. Besides get in the way of domestic energy production, what DOES this department do that requires 12THOUSAND employees? In a 'limited central government' can anyone explain why this is allowed?
The EPA has 16THOUSAND employees? For what? I know. Harassing companies throughout the country. Making doing business harder for private businesses. What else? What does this department do that requires more than 1,000 employees? I expect nothing useful. Not only could this department be cut in staff, but the budget could be greatly reduced. The majority of what this department does would be DONE BETTER at the state level, where it belongs. Limited Central Government! The EPA doesn't need 'to be reined in a little bit', the EPA needs to be reined in a GREAT DEAL. Washington has lost complete control of the EPA. They make up their own rules, harass businesses just for the hell of it, and make life miserable in so many ways. They have even told Congress what they will do & won't do, dismissing Congressional oversight like the department is an independent kingdom. They have specifically told Congress that if they don't pass specific laws that EPA wants, they will make an EPA-specific rule and start to enforce it. This department is so out of control it's hard to put into words.
Department of Labor: 16THOUSAND employees. What is it's purpose besides creating 15THOUSAND too many jobs? Do they oversee private companies helping make jobs available to real people? Highly unlikely. Better that the majority of the tasks performed by this department be done at the state level. A small contingent of federal employees could oversee the state departments of Labor quite effectively. Not only would this eliminate about 15,000 federal jobs, but the budget could be reduced by about 80% (or more).
Remember, limited central government. Remember limited central government? Anything that can be done by the central government can be done BETTER, more efficiently, and for less money, at the state level. Oh, wait. This is not an original idea. This is the idea the founders came up with. As I recall, and my memory is getting worse as I age, they actually wrote down this idea in some document. I'm trying to remember the name of the document, and if it can still be found somewhere. Oh, yeah. I remember. It's called THE CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES. It states that anything not specifically listed as the responsibility of the central government is the right and responsibility of the individual states. This means now, just as it did then, a LIMITED CENTRAL GOVERNMENT!
For all you socialists out there, please demonstrate for the rest of us where socialism has been as successful as our republic. (For all you Democrats, remember that we are a Representative Republic, not a Democracy.) Where in the world, now or in the past, has socialism produced so many benefits to so many people? Where has socialized medicine made it better for the majority of it's citizens? Where in the world has central government control made it easier or better to have a job or create a business? Think long & hard. Google it. You won't come up with an answer. But I'll wait for your reply anyway.
As for H. Brady's comment: the Republicans have offered options. They have tried to fund all the important parts of the central government. They have tried to fund everything except socialized medicine. Remember that it was the King who chose to ignore "don't ask, don't tell". It was the King and Democrats who chose to ignore DOMA. It's the King who chose to ignore the law when it comes to implementing Obamacare. So, if you want to talk about cherry-picking, get a mirror.
As for running the best and strongest country in the world, central government control can be demonstrated to be the least effective, least efficient way of doing this. History shows that we became the strongest & best when we were the freest, not when socialism was in control, not when the central government was the biggest and most powerful. Why is it now necessary for central control of day-to-day life?
