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  I am conservative and I want to see Obamacare repealed.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.

Rand Paul at Howard University

Rand Paul has decided to take the bull by the horns and go out to the black community.  About effin' time as far as I am concerned.  The GOP must do this.  Yes, it will be painful.  Yes, it will be for only a few votes.  Yes, they will be uncomfortable.  But, it still must be done.  We cannot continue to ignore 12% of our population and expect to win national elections.  

Did he do a perfect job?  No.  He made some mistakes, but overall he did a good job.  Now, I wouldn't have gone into the history of civil rights and the republican party, nobody really cares today that once upon a time that people such as Marting Luther King was a republican.  I also don't buy into the meme that most blacks don't understand that history.  They feel that the republican party is now racist.  Granted, that is something that they are conditioned to believe from childhood, but they have access to the same history books that we do.  

He also missed some opportunities.  The most important coming in the Q&A section.  One young man asked about government staying out of your life.  He didn't do enough to explain the difference between limited government and no government. Precious few believe in "no government".  

For those who call this pandering, grow up.  He promised them nothing, except the promise of what a limited government can do improve their lives.  School vouchers is a big issue within the black community and it is something that we need to hit hard in order to get them to see that we are indeed on their side.  

This was a small, but important step.  

Won't You Go Home Bill Bolling

Well the truth is that Lt. Governor Bill Bolling did decide today not to make an independent run for the governor of Virginia.  The talk that he may seek an independent bid has been going on for several months now, since he decided to forgo a run for the GOP nomination.  

“Based on my discussions with key donors over the past three weeks, I was confident I could raise enough money to run a competitive campaign, but I was not confident I could raise enough money to run a winning campaign,” Bolling said. “Running as an Independent candidate would have required me to sever my longstanding relationship with the Republican Party. While I am very concerned about the current direction of the Republican Party, I still have many dear friends in the Republican Party, people who have been incredibly supportive of me over the years.”

Now, I want to make perfectly clear that I had intended to support Bolling at the upcoming convention in May.  So I am not some huge AG Cuccinelli supporter.  I have some issues with Ken; issues that are primarily based on some inside info that I know about and will not go into in this public forum.  But, suffice it to say, I will still be supporting Ken in the primary election.  His the ideal candidate to me?  No, but he is a far cry better than Terry McAuliffe.  

For those that may need some background, Bill Bolling is serving his second four-year term as Lt. Governor.  Four years ago he made a half-hearted attempt at running for governor, and rightly decided that he wouldn't try to get the nomination.  Now many say he gave up his own ambition because it was right for the party.  Maybe.  But, the truth is that he didn't have a chance to get the nomination in a head to head race with now Gov. Bob McDonnell. Many say that he is somehow owed this nomination due to that.  

Seriously?  C'mon folks.  The nomination isn't due to anyone.  I can't stand this whole he is next line thinking that the GOP has been employing for years and years.  What exactly has that thinking gotten us?  I will tell you what it got us, John McCain and Mitt Romney going against Obama.  Now I will be willing to admit that Romney would have a much better chance to going against Obama in 08 then he did in 12.   There was no way to deny how much trouble the economy was in four years ago.  There were ways to do that last year.  

Another thing I found very comical about all the going back and forth over the past few months is the fact that very same people who were supporting Bolling's indie run were the same people who said I "had" to vote for Romney and put my principles aside.  It was the "right" thing to do.  I was supporting the party.  The very same party that has time and time again pushed against my belief system and consistently raised taxes and increased spending, even on a state level.  The last session of the Virginia legislator just recently raised taxes in what is said to be the largest tax increase in Commonwealth history.  It is also raised taxes in an inconsistent basis.  Some counties will have to pay higher taxes than others.  Which seems not to hold the muster by the Virginia Constitution.  

Moreover, simply calling a measure a “regional congestion-relief fee” doesn’t change the reality that this is really a tax on real estate. Proponents of the deal will reject that, saying it is a transaction fee. But it is not a flat fee. Instead, the amount paid is tied to the price of the land — reflecting real estate conditions, the surrounding neighborhood and more. That’s a tax, and the state Supreme Court ruled as much in 2008, when it struck down the General Assembly’s previous attempt to impose a regional congestion fee.

These are the people who I am supposed to support?  Look, I get that transportation issues in the state have to be addressed, especially in the Northern Virginia area, but that doesn't mean that this tax hike is going to solve the problem.  A big part of the problem is the cronyism that goes on within the Virginia Department of Transportation, which of course increases costs.   So much of the budget is wasted.   I lived there for 17 years, and I would watch them tear up a road, pave it, then tear it up again.  I am supposed to pay higher taxes simply because the people who are hired can't do the job properly the first time?  

I am sure that many are crying in their milk today that Bolling has deciding to take his ball and go home.  My question to them is that if a more conservative candidate toys with the idea of running an independent bid will be as open-minded to it?   Somehow I don't think so.  During the past few months I have been called a bully.  Really?  Me, a bully?  Hardly.  I have been writing this blog for close to four years, how often have you heard me call people names?  I don't do that nor do I like when others do.  I see that as unproductive and childish.   Another thing that those pushing this run seem to fail to mention are a few facts.  Ken Cuccinelli got a larger percentage of the vote four years ago then the governor did.  Ken Cuccinelli also ran and won in Fairfax County, VA when he was serving in the state legislator.  For those that don't know, Fairfax County is one of the bluest counties in the state.  Every credible poll puts this a very tight race, one that Ken could easily win.  

So, for the people who are all upset about Bill Bolling, it is time to dry your tears and get on board.  That is what you told me a year ago.  

An Open Letter to @McCainBlogette

Dearest Meghan:

I read you advice to the GOP about moderating or "evolving" as you put it.  You talked about social issues being the death of the republican party:

I know there are many out there, especially in the more conservative sphere, that regard me with disdain. I don’t fit into the traditional Republican box that the wingnuts who have hijacked my party think all Republicans should. For the last four years, I’ve been calling for Republicans to stop concentrating on social issues. I am a single woman in my 20s and that fact alone gave me the perspective that I don’t want to regulate a woman’s right to choice. I am pro-life, but because life is complicated, that choice is between a woman and her idea of a higher power. I believe if Roe vs. Wade were repealed, abortion would still go on. I care more about my economy, national security, and fiscal conservatism than I do about what other woman do with their bodies. It’s not my place, and I don’t believe it’s the government’s place, to make such decisions

Yes, Meghan abortion would still go on if Roe is repealed because repealing Roe doesn't make abortion illegal, it leaves it up to the states to decide.  As a person who is a republican you should be believing in states rights, as that is what is meant, in part, by limited government.  Limited government is part of the platform of the GOP.  You see I think that you agree on abortion when it comes to this, I too don't believe that abortion should be a question of religion.  I believe that abortion is an issue of personhood and the constitutional rights that a person has.  Remember that line Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?  It is a little difficult to pursue happiness if you are dead.  To me abortion is about science, not about God.  That question has never been answered in a court of law and I think it should be.  Does a human being get afforded the same rights under the law that an egg of certain birds gets?  I would like a court to answer the question why a bird egg  has more value under the law than a human being does?  They are laws in place that you will be fined and/or jailed for damaging the bird fetus, but a human being in this country isn't afforded the same rights.  I think there is something wrong with that picture.  Why don't you?  

You go on to talk about immigration issues:

  I think America needs a better immigration policy and immigrants who were brought here illegally as children shouldn’t be deported.

I too think that we need better immigration policy.  It is next to impossible for a low wage earner to come here legally from Mexico, but it will take those same low wage earners from other countries.  That makes no sense.  Those things needs to change and adapt to the work force that we have and the work force that we need.  I am first generation, so I know all too well about the advantages of immigrants coming to this country.  This country was built by them and has flourished because of them.  But I must ask you a few questions about your stance on "The Dream Act".  You say that children brought here shouldn't be deported.  But the questions that people with your view-point never seem to answer are as follows:

1. Do we give those that came as children visa's but deport the parents?  If so, do you think these children/young adults are going to come forward if they fear that it means that their parents are going to be deported?  
2. What about the ones that came here as children but are over the age restrictions that The Dream Act puts into place?  Do we deport the 32-year-old, but not the 29-year-old?  Or whatever arbitrary age that the law comes up with.  
3. Do they get to cut in line in front of the people who have been in other countries going through the proper and legal process?  (As a relative of mine is doing)
4. What do we do with the people who paid thousands upon thousands of dollars to go through the legal process?  Do they get their money back? If not, doesn't that mean we are not being "fair"?    
5. How long before they are allowed to become citizens?  
6. Will they be afforded the same rights as other immigrants and citizens of this country who can sponsor relatives to come here?  If so, doesn't that potentially quadruple the number of people we are giving amnesty to?  
7. What do we do about border security?  If we don't secure the borders and every 30 years or so we give amnesty to people who come here illegally, why bother to have any immigration laws at all?  It is essentially becomes an open border policy.  

You see Ms. McCain it really isn't as black and white as your 20 something brain is led to believe that it is.  The issue is very complicated and people like you won't answer the hard questions.  That is the reason "right winged nuts" take the stand that they do.  Do you believe that America should have no immigration policy?  If so, doesn't that fly in the face of your desire to concentrate on national security?  A de facto open border policy is a national security issue, wouldn't you agree?  There can be no moving forward on this issue until the borders are secured.  Is the federal government making any real attempt to do that?  I think by the levels of crime in your home state that the answer to that question is no.  

I would think that one of the things that you are saying is that we should compromise and get good law for all Americans.  Forgive me if I am wrong about that.  But I get this feeling that I am not.  I am not blind to the fact that governing is about compromise.  But another thing that my not in my 20's perspective has taught me is that when you are entering negotiations you need to start in a place that is further than where you end up.  

Now, when you negotiate your contracts with MSNBC to bash talk about conservatives don't you start at a higher rate?  If so, why do think it is unreasonable for the republicans to do basically the same thing?  Because what I am getting from your essay is that we should be starting with a position that isn't much different from the democrats.  How exactly do you negotiate?  I hope you have an agent that is better suited to take care of your needs.  If not, you are doing yourself a big disservice.  

Another thing that you talk about is fiscal conservatism.  One of the things that leads to all the spending we do in this country is based on social issues.  That is another thing that your 20 something brain has yet to learn.  Fiscal conservatism requires discussion on social issues.  

You have brought "gay rights".  I don't care who someone loves.  But I do care what the gay right movement is trying to accomplish; a total dismissal of the biblical view of marriage.  That is bad and it must be punished.  My view-point is bigoted.    Many say that gay marriage will have no ill effects on society.  While it is too new in this country to gauge that, it has been around in Canada for more than 10 years.  A study has been recently released:

The formal effect of the judicial decisions (and subsequent legislation) establishing same-sex civil marriage in Canada was simply that persons of the same-sex could now have the government recognize their relationships as marriages. But the legal and cultural effect was much broader. What transpired was the adoption of a new orthodoxy: that same-sex relationships are, in every way, the equivalent of traditional marriage, and that same-sex marriage must therefore be treated identically to traditional marriage in law and public life.
A corollary is that anyone who rejects the new orthodoxy must be acting on the basis of bigotry and animus toward gays and lesbians. Any statement of disagreement with same-sex civil marriage is thus considered a straightforward manifestation of hatred toward a minority sexual group. Any reasoned explanation (for example, those that were offered in legal arguments that same-sex marriage is incompatible with a conception of marriage that responds to the needs of the children of the marriage for stability, fidelity, and permanence—what is sometimes called the conjugal conception of marriage), is dismissed right away as mere pretext.
When one understands opposition to same-sex marriage as a manifestation of sheer bigotry and hatred, it becomes very hard to tolerate continued dissent. Thus it was in Canada that the terms of participation in public life changed very quickly. Civil marriage commissioners were the first to feel the hard edge of the new orthodoxy; several provinces refused to allow commissioners a right of conscience to refuse to preside over same-sex weddings, and demanded their resignations. At the same time, religious organizations, such as the Knights of Columbus, were fined for refusing to rent their facilities for post-wedding celebrations.

They go on:

The new orthodoxy’s impact has not been limited to the relatively small number of persons at risk of being coerced into supporting or celebrating a same-sex marriage. The change has widely affected persons—including clergy—who wish to make public arguments about human sexuality.
Much speech that was permitted before same-sex marriage now carries risks. Many of those who have persisted in voicing their dissent have been subjected to investigations by human rights commissions and (in some cases) proceedings before human rights tribunals. Those who are poor, poorly educated, and without institutional affiliation have been particularly easy targets—anti-discrimination laws are not always applied evenly.  Some have been ordered to pay fines, make apologies, and undertake never to speak publicly on such matters again. Targets have included individuals writing letters to the editors of local newspapers, and ministers of small congregations of Christians. A Catholic bishop faced two complaints—both eventually withdrawn—prompted by comments he made in a pastoral letter about marriage.
Reviewing courts have begun to rein in the commissions and tribunals (particularly since some ill-advised proceedings against Mark Steyn andMaclean’s magazine in 2009), and restore a more capacious view of freedom of speech. And in response to the public outcry following the Steyn/Maclean’saffair, the Parliament of Canada recently revoked the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s statutory jurisdiction to pursue “hate speech.”
But the financial cost of fighting the human rights machine remains enormous—Maclean’s spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, none of which is recoverable from the commissions, tribunals, or complainants. And these cases can take up to a decade to resolve. An ordinary person with few resources who has drawn the attention of a human rights commission has no hope of appealing to the courts for relief; such a person can only accept the admonition of the commission, pay a (comparatively) small fine, and then observe the directive to remain forever silent. As long as these tools remain at the disposal of the commissions—for whom the new orthodoxy gives no theoretical basis to tolerate dissent—to engage in public discussion about same-sex marriage is to court ruin.
Similar pressure can be—and is—brought to bear on dissenters by professional governing bodies (such as bar associations, teachers’ colleges, and the like) that have statutory power to discipline members for conduct unbecoming of the profession. Expressions of disagreement with the reasonableness of institutionalizing same-sex marriage are understood by these bodies to be acts of illegal discrimination, which are matters for professional censure.
Teachers are particularly at risk for disciplinary action, for even if they only make public statements criticizing same-sex marriage outside the classroom, they are still deemed to create a hostile environment for gay and lesbian students. Other workplaces and voluntary associations have adopted similar policies as a result of their having internalized this new orthodoxy that disagreement with same-sex marriage is illegal discrimination that must not be tolerated.

You see Ms. McCain, the agenda as well as the outcome has much broader effects than simple "fairness".  You see people who have strong religious views; which I would hope you feel that they are entitled to, are being forced to not only accept something, but being stifled.  The right of parents to pass down those biblical values to their children are being threatened.  Tolerance requires that both sides accept opposing points of views.  What is tolerant about private citizens being sued to accept something that goes against their deeply held belief system?  I, for one, view marriage as primarily a religious institution that for some reason that the government decided to get involved with.  Mostly so they can raise revenue with fees for licenses and the like.  You say you don't want the government involved in issues between a person and their God higher power when it comes to abortion but have no problem with that same interference when it comes to marriage.  

So, I have a suggestion for you, take some of that hard-earned money that you have received bashing discussing people like me, go and buy yourself a new pair of Jimmy Choos for the occasion and march yourself to your local board of elections and change your registration.  Why wait?  

Artur Davis Speaks of Why He Has Joined the GOP - Jindal and Christie Big Factors

He lives in my neck of the woods.  There are things that I don't like about Christie, but if he wants to run for elected office in my progressive area and vote like that, I will take it.  Remember, he was one of the first people to publicly come  out for President Obama.  This is big.  He sees for himself, the democratic party has left him.  

Marco Rubio Gives the GOP Weekly Address

I love this man.

Herman Cain Endorses Newt for President

This really shouldn't come as a surprise.  Newt and Herman have know each other for many years.  Newt is a big ideas kind of guy, and so is Herman. 

Newt has promised to keep Cain's 9-9-9 plan in the national conversation if he becomes president.  I am not sure how much this will help Newt.  The wild swing in Florida continues.  He and Romney have been trading the front runner status for more than a week now.  The latest poll has Newt back on top by less than 1/2 of 1 point.

GOP Pledge to America

The GOP will be officialing unveiling the document tomorrow at a small business in Herndon, VA; a suburb of Washington, DC. 

Here are few excerpts:

"We pledge to honor families, traditional marriage, life, and the private and faith-based organizations that form the core of our American values."

Act Immediately to Reduce Spending: There is no reason to wait to reduce wasteful and unnecessary spending. Congress should move immediately to cancel unspent "stimulus" funds, and block any attempts to extend the timeline for spending "stimulus" funds. Throwing more money at a stimulus plan that is not working only wastes taxpayer money and puts us further in debt.

Cut Congress’ Budget:

Establish a Hard Cap on New Discretionary Spending:

We must put common-sense limits on the growth of government and stop the endless increases. Only in Washington is there an expectation that whatever your budget was last year, it will be more this year and even more the next. We will set strict budget caps to limit federal spending on an annual basis. Budget caps were used in the 1990s, when a Republican Congress was able to bring the budget into balance and eventual surplus. By cutting discretionary spending from current levels and imposing a hard cap on future growth, we will save taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars.

Hold Weekly Votes on Spending Cuts:

This is a start, and if they think that they can write this out before the election and than disregard it as soon as they take office, they have another thing coming.  Earlier this year, House Republicans launched the YouCut initiative to combat the permissive culture of runaway spending in Congress. Over the course of nine weeks, YouCut produced proposals to save taxpayers more than $120 billion. We will continue to hold weekly votes on spending cuts.

This year, Congress increased its own budget by 5.8 percent at a time when families and small businesses across the country are cutting back. We will make Congress do more with less by significantly reducing its budget.
GOP Pledge to America

GOP's Young Guns

Remember November - RGA Ad

12 Weeks from Republican Governors Association on Vimeo.

Funniest Line of the Day

President Obama today speaking at the GOP retreat:
"I am not an ideologue, I'm not." 

Clearly, you are delusional if you believe this. 

A Very Good Day in the Commonwealth - Our New Governor

Bob McDonnell ran a great campaign.  He not only stayed on message with important issues, he did it by remaining postive.  Gov McDonnell didn't allow the media to drag him into the gutter.  He ran a campaign that all republicans should follow.  Yesterday afternoon, the hardwork of the Virginia Republican Party paid off as he took his oath of office.