The price of a government shutdown

So if the federal government shuts down, taxpayers would save a lot of money, right?

Not quite.

It would actually cost taxpayers money. And for every day the shutdown continues, the bill would go up.

"There is absolutely no way this saves money. Zip," said Bo Cutter, former director of the National Economic Council and a senior fellow at the Roosevelt Institute.

It's pretty hard to put an accurate price tag on a shutdown. Official estimates of the costs incurred during last major shutdowns in 1995 and 1996 vary widely.

And the White House hasn't produced an estimate of how much a shutdown might cost, but it does say it will cost something.

First, the government actually has to spend money in order to complete an orderly shutdown.

"When you have to shut something down, that costs money, and ramping something back up costs money," Jeffrey Zients, deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget said Thursday.

Imagine a government construction project. Since it's impossible to know how long the shutdown will last, workers are forced to wind down all operations and secure the work site. That all costs money.

It's a process that will be repeated all across the country, and in every government agency. Plus, whenever funding is restored, it will cost money to get the project back up to speed.

In the meantime, costs will increase the longer a shutdown drags on.

"The longer a shutdown is in place, the more extensive the costs become," said John F. Cooney, a partner at law firm Venable who designed shutdown plans for the government while employed at the Office of Management and Budget.

There is also the issue of federal worker pay.

When the clock strikes midnight and a shutdown starts, paychecks for federal workers stop. But that won't be saving taxpayers any money.

When a shutdown ends after Congress passes a spending bill, the "essential" workers who were kept on the job will automatically be paid for the time they worked during the shutdown.

And the 800,000 or so workers who might be furloughed? In every previous government shutdown, Congress has authorized back pay for them as well, even for days they didn't work. One caveat: There is no guarantee that will happen again.

But if it does, it'll be a double whammy. Workers will get their paychecks, but the work they normally do will have piled up in the meantime. When workers return, agencies might have to pay overtime just to catch up on all the work that wasn't done during the shutdown.

And not only will the government end up with a bigger bill, there will be less revenue as well.

Some agencies -- like the National Park Service -- charge user fees. When they close, no fees are collected. On an average day, visitors spend $32 million at National Parks.

There are also intangible costs, especially when the productivity of federal workers is considered.

"You've been working your ass off ... and someone comes to tell you that you are non-essential?" Cutter said. "There is a huge management morale issue when everyone comes back to work."

Of course, when a shutdown is considered in the context of the larger budget negotiations, the whole process will almost certainly result in savings for taxpayers. That's because both Democrats and Republicans agree that a compromise spending bill will slash tens of billions from the federal budget

Source

On a lighter note Gleen Beck is leaving Fox, so we don't have to deal with his dumbass as much (I'm sure he'll be doing something else).

We're so f`ucked is probably an understatement.

We're so f`ucked is probably an understatement.

Your tax job is affected too right?

Hasn't a government shutdown already happened in the past? And if I remember right, didn't it cost a hell of a lot?

So if I'm understanding the article right, people -want- a government shutdown?

Your tax job is affected too right?

Federal not State, the only thing that is affecting us is the calls concerning what the federal is going to do, which is like calling EOS about why nexon can't fix anything.

If the Federal Gov't shuts down on Friday, electronic federal tax returns will still process. If the federal and State returns are electronically filed together, 'Piggy Backed" then the State return will still transmit to us.

Any shutdown will not affect the IRS efile process or our return transmittals.

#1 Hundreds of thousands of “non-essential” federal workers will be told to stay home during a government shutdown.

#2 Those in the military will not receive paychecks during a government shutdown but they will be required to keep performing their duties.

#3 The Obama administration is anticipating “significantly lower staffing levels” at the White House if a shutdown happens.

#4 Barack Obama will continue to be paid during a government shutdown.

#5 Congress will also be paid and will continue to operate at close to normal levels during a government shutdown.

#6 The Federal Reserve will continue to operate normally during a government shutdown. The Federal Reserve is not part of the U.S. government.

#7 In all probability, all government employees will eventually receive any pay that is missed during a government shutdown. During the 5 day U.S. government shutdown back in 1995, approximately 800,000 “non-essential” government employees were told not to come in to work. But eventually they all got paid retroactively anyway.

#8 During a government shutdown, the Department of Homeland Security will suspend operation of its e-Verify system. Employers will be unable to verify the immigration status of job applicants and that could have a substantial negative impact on hiring.

#9 The processing of small business loans and FHA mortgages will be delayed during a government shutdown.

#10 The U.S. Postal Service will not be affected by a government shutdown. You will continue to get your mail.

#11 According to the Social Security Administration, everyone that is currently receiving Social Security benefits will continue to receive those benefits during a shutdown. New applications will be delayed however.

#12 Medicare payments will continue during a government shutdown, but there will be a delay in processing new applications.

#13 During a government shutdown, the processing of paper tax returns by the IRS would be delayed.

#14 If there is a government shutdown, the processing of passport and visa applications could be seriously delayed. This could have a negative impact on the tourism industry.

#15 National parks, museums and tourist attractions will be shut down. According to the Washington Post, “about 500,000 visitors could be turned away this weekend alone from the National Zoo and the major Smithsonian museums on the Mall”.

#16 The annual Cherry Blossom Festival parade in Washington D.C. that is scheduled for this weekend would be cancelled.

Sources:
http://www.aolnews.com/2011/02/22/govern...t-happene/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fede..._blog.html
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/...hutdown-/1
http://endoftheamericandream.com/archive...either-way
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/07/us/pol....html?_r=1
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/07/us/pol...gewanted=2

To me, calling it a government shutdown is a joke. Its political fearmongering. The core will still be paid for and running and our lives will mostly be unaffected aside from a few people being unable to apply for some forms of government aid. In the end, it wont save us any money, and "non-essenial" workers will be compensated for the days they could not work.
In the end, it will just be as pointless as Granholm shutting down the Michigan State Government. Barely anyone noticed the difference.

But I'm still quite disturbed with how our military will go unpaid. Even if they are compensated in the end, they are out there taking orders and working for the government and they should be paid now, rather than later.

Edit: Just to say, this doesnt mean there will not be problems. Of course the areas of government that got shut down will experience some issues when they restart and many government workers will be short on money if this fearmongering doesnt stop soon, but this is far from a real or full shutdown.

Wow...

My dad got off the phone with my brother a little while ago. My brother's paycheck was already halved (He's in the Air Force)... He has absolutely no way to pay for any of his bills anymore.

Wow...

My dad got off the phone with my brother a little while ago. My brother's paycheck was already halved (He's in the Air Force)... He has absolutely no way to pay for any of his bills anymore.

God DAM! O_o

That is unacceptable to the fullest!

And California always has some form of shut down government every year because effing Sacramento could NEVER make up their minds on a proper budget. So, I'm not as worried, but still am because this is on a much greater scale.

I'm starting to think the USA needs some version of California's Prop 25 (the pay loss, NOT the voting change)

Thanks, Boner.

All of this hassle because the Republicans have to unfund Planned Parenthood. Clearly it is more important to keep condoms away from teenagers than it is to keep the federal government operating in full.

inb4tangent

I dont see why we should fund an organization like this:
"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." - Margaret Sanger

I think the President should just back down. Losing funding for the EPA and Planned Parenthood is probably worth the cost and better in the long run with our massive 14-15 trillion dollar debt.
He backed down on refusing to sign bills full of pork; why not back down on this?

And the opinion of a disabled veteran:
[video=youtube;DfhY3ZEbv5I]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfhY3ZEbv5I
[/video]
I guess congress has no respect for the men and women that put their lives on the line for the illegal wars congress and the president refuse to end.

Funny how the politicians will still get paid -_-

I dont see why we should fund an organization like this:
"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." - Margaret Sanger

Was that in the context of her talking about abortion? If so, I agree with her.

Funny how the politicians will still get paid -_-



Was that in the context of her talking about abortion? If so, I agree with her.

I believe that she is against abortion: "...we explained simply what contraception was; that abortion was the wrong way — no matter how early it was performed it was taking a life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way — it took a little time, a little trouble, but was well worth while in the long run, because life had not yet begun." "While there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization."

But the thing that disturbs me the most is that she calls killing an infant merciful without first offering the option of adoption.

So just out of curiosity, since I'm completely in the dark in all of this, what is the likelihood of this actually happening?

I believe that she is against abortion: "...we explained simply what contraception was; that abortion was the wrong way — no matter how early it was performed it was taking a life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way — it took a little time, a little trouble, but was well worth while in the long run, because life had not yet begun."

But the thing that disturbs me the most is that she calls killing an infant merciful without first offering the option of adoption.

Then in that case I do not agree with her. However I do not see why it should impact on the funding of Planned Parenthood as they obviously don't carry out those actions. Planned Parenthood are doing good things, even for the unborn, and should have some guaranteed funding.

(And it's still disgusting that politicians will be paid)

Then in that case I do not agree with her. However I do not see why it should impact on the funding of Planned Parenthood as they obviously don't carry out those actions. Planned Parenthood are doing good things, even for the unborn, and should have some guaranteed funding.

(And it's still disgusting that politicians will be paid)

Private funding, I cant complain about. Public funding I am against. I dont believe the federal government should be getting involved in every issue in this country. Besides, we cant afford it.

Unplanned children are a burden on everyone, government included, and government are right in helping eliminate the problem. Abortion and contraception costs less than welfare.

Unplanned children are a burden on everyone, government included, and government are right in helping eliminate the problem. Abortion and contraception costs less than welfare.

I think plenty of parents that have had unplanned children will disagree. And if you want to turn this into a finnancial issue, forfeiting welfare is probably cheaper, but I think it is disgraceful to compare human life to a dollar.

Anyway, I dont want to contribute to organizations with a few too many questionable steletons in their closets.
http://americasnewsnow.com/is-planned-pa...video.html

If you're going to complain about money, there's three areas for you to attack. Social Security, Medicare/cade, and Military Spending. Attacking the other 12%, was it, of the budget as "cutting back" is ludicrous.

If you're going to complain about money, there's three areas for you to attack. Social Security, Medicare/cade, and Military Spending. Attacking the other 12%, was it, of the budget as "cutting back" is ludicrous.

And all should go (except defense spending, but we do need to make major cuts and stop getting involved in wars). Who ever said that I dont attack spending in other areas?