The Government Shutdown Countdown Lowdown MEGATHREAD

[Razgovory]

Removing staff would probably make Congressmen more reliant on lobbyists.

[merithyn]

Proposal is that the legislative staff members would have to pay under the ACA the same as everyone else. I don't think that's such a bad thing to ask. Another one rejected by the Dems was that the government, under the originally passed ACA law, confirms income levels before individuals can score Obamacare subsidies. These don't seem so onerous. I can see them fighting over the legislative health care perks but even that is bad policy. Many taxpayers are taking a cut with the ACA.

But first, Congress has to get rid of their own exemption.

Why shit on the little guys who already make crap pay for the work they do? Make The Top Dogs lose it, first.

Oh wait. Right, this is America, where The Top Dogs are too good for the kind of stuff they subject The Little People to. Carry on.

[Razgovory]

Most Congressmen are independently wealthy.

[Berkut]

Proposal is that the legislative staff members would have to pay under the ACA the same as everyone else.

But everyone else doesn't pay the same under the ACA.

This is just plain stupid.

[Berkut]

Proposal is that the legislative staff members would have to pay under the ACA the same as everyone else. I don't think that's such a bad thing to ask. Another one rejected by the Dems was that the government, under the originally passed ACA law, confirms income levels before individuals can score Obamacare subsidies. These don't seem so onerous. I can see them fighting over the legislative health care perks but even that is bad policy. Many taxpayers are taking a cut with the ACA.

But first, Congress has to get rid of their own exemption.

Why shit on the little guys who already make crap pay for the work they do? Make The Top Dogs lose it, first.

Oh wait. Right, this is America, where The Top Dogs are too good for the kind of stuff they subject The Little People to. Carry on.

The Vitter Amendment removes health insurance for all members of Congress, the President and VP (and formerly their staff as well, although the latest version I think removes that). They would then be forced to purchase their insurance on the exchange, and further the amendment stipulates that their salaries cannot be adjusted to compensate them for it.

So yeah, it is doing exactly the opposite of what you are complaining about.

But it is still a ridiculously stupid idea. It is just legislating pettiness.

[Gups]

Proposal is that the legislative staff members would have to pay under the ACA the same as everyone else. I don't think that's such a bad thing to ask. Another one rejected by the Dems was that the government, under the originally passed ACA law, confirms income levels before individuals can score Obamacare subsidies. These don't seem so onerous. I can see them fighting over the legislative health care perks but even that is bad policy. Many taxpayers are taking a cut with the ACA.

But first, Congress has to get rid of their own exemption.

Why shit on the little guys who already make crap pay for the work they do? Make The Top Dogs lose it, first.

Oh wait. Right, this is America, where The Top Dogs are too good for the kind of stuff they subject The Little People to. Carry on.

If you want to keep the kind of world-class legislators the US is justly renowed for, you have to give them these kind of perks. Otherwise they will simply move to another country and legislate there instead.

[mongers]

If you want to keep the kind of world-class legislators the US is justly renowed for, you have to give them these kind of perks. Otherwise they will simply move to another country and legislate there instead.

[merithyn]

The Vitter Amendment removes health insurance for all members of Congress, the President and VP (and formerly their staff as well, although the latest version I think removes that). They would then be forced to purchase their insurance on the exchange, and further the amendment stipulates that their salaries cannot be adjusted to compensate them for it.

So yeah, it is doing exactly the opposite of what you are complaining about.

But it is still a ridiculously stupid idea. It is just legislating pettiness.

Oh. Well that's what I get for not reading about it before posting.

[garbon]

The Vitter Amendment removes health insurance for all members of Congress, the President and VP (and formerly their staff as well, although the latest version I think removes that). They would then be forced to purchase their insurance on the exchange, and further the amendment stipulates that their salaries cannot be adjusted to compensate them for it.

So yeah, it is doing exactly the opposite of what you are complaining about.

But it is still a ridiculously stupid idea. It is just legislating pettiness.

Oh. Well that's what I get for not reading about it before posting.

I think it has actually been modified (or re-proposed) several times as I believe in an earlier version it was just targeted at staffers.

[garbon]

Proposal is that the legislative staff members would have to pay under the ACA the same as everyone else. I don't think that's such a bad thing to ask. Another one rejected by the Dems was that the government, under the originally passed ACA law, confirms income levels before individuals can score Obamacare subsidies. These don't seem so onerous. I can see them fighting over the legislative health care perks but even that is bad policy. Many taxpayers are taking a cut with the ACA.

But first, Congress has to get rid of their own exemption.

Why shit on the little guys who already make crap pay for the work they do? Make The Top Dogs lose it, first.

Oh wait. Right, this is America, where The Top Dogs are too good for the kind of stuff they subject The Little People to. Carry on.

If you want to keep the kind of world-class legislators the US is justly renowed for, you have to give them these kind of perks. Otherwise they will simply move to another country and legislate there instead.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/david-vitter-amendment-obamacare-98355.html

The Vitter amendment has popped up in various iterations throughout the fiscal drama that has consumed the Capitol for several weeks. But aides have long grumbled privately about the potential effects of the Vitter amendment and have warned of a "brain drain" on Capitol Hill.

[The Minsky Moment]

If you want to keep the kind of world-class legislators the US is justly renowed for, you have to give them these kind of perks. Otherwise they will simply move to another country and legislate there instead.

Unfourtunately the joke is on us, because our Congress ends up filled up with independently wealthy dilettantes, second rate talents (eg speaker of the house as former high school wrestling coach), or people obsessed by power or ideology.

[Malthus]

The Vitter amendment has popped up in various iterations throughout the fiscal drama that has consumed the Capitol for several weeks. But aides have long grumbled privately about the potential effects of the Vitter amendment and have warned of a "brain drain" on Capitol Hill.

Judging by results, they don't have any brains to spare. 

[Viking]

If you want to keep the kind of world-class legislators the US is justly renowed for, you have to give them these kind of perks. Otherwise they will simply move to another country and legislate there instead.

Unfourtunately the joke is on us, because our Congress ends up filled up with independently wealthy dilettantes, second rate talents (eg speaker of the house as former high school wrestling coach), or people obsessed by power or ideology.

Pitt the even Younger

[Gups]

If you want to keep the kind of world-class legislators the US is justly renowed for, you have to give them these kind of perks. Otherwise they will simply move to another country and legislate there instead.

Unfourtunately the joke is on us, because our Congress ends up filled up with independently wealthy dilettantes, second rate talents (eg speaker of the house as former high school wrestling coach), or people obsessed by power or ideology.

I suspect that is the nature of the job as much a the amount you pay them (significantly more than MPs get). I think that the best you can do is pay them enough that competent people would not have to take a significant pay cut to get in.

I suspect that the problem in the US revolves more around campaign financing and gerry mandering than salaries.

[Syt]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57607679/government-shutdown-debt-talks-continue-white-house-fights-default-deniers/

Government shutdown, debt talks continue; White House fights "default deniers"

Attempts to craft a deal to end the government shutdown and raise the debt limit fell apart in the Republican-led House Tuesday evening, after the latest Republican proposal seemingly failed to garner sufficient support. The House shelved the vote it was aiming for, leaving Senate leaders to figure out a last-ditch solution.

By Thursday, if Congress hasn't raised the nation's debt limit, the Treasury will have exhausted its borrowing authority and will be relying on limited cash reserves to pay off the nation's debt. It won't necessarily happen at 12:01 a.m. on Thursday, and it may take a few days or even weeks for the world to feel the full impact of such an unprecedented state of economic uncertainty.

Still, the White House is furiously trying to drive home the point that Congress needs to raise the debt limit as soon as possible.

"Every day that we get closer to the point beyond which we've never been, which is where the United States does not have borrowing authority, creates more trouble for our economy and uncertainty globally, which has a negative impact on our economy," White House spokesman Jay Carney said Tuesday.

"The deadline for avoiding uncertainty has passed" already, he added.

Indeed, the global rating agency Fitch said Tuesday that the United States' AAA credit rating is now under review for a downgrade.

"Although Fitch continues to believe that the debt ceiling will be raised soon, the political brinkmanship and reduced financing flexibility could increase the risk of a U.S. default," the firm said in a statement.

The statement also said, however, that "even if the debt limit is not raised before or shortly after 17 October, we assume there is sufficient political will and capacity to ensure that Treasury securities will continue to be honoured in full and on time."

A BofA Merrill Lynch interest rate strategist reportedly wrote in a note to clients that the Treasury Department can effectively run on fumes until Nov. 15 before it actually has to default on its loans.

That kind of leeway -- the fact that there's not a hard deadline before calamity hits -- has contributed to the intransigence in Congress. Rep. Mick Mulvaney, R-S.C., for instance, has suggested President Obama is lying about the threat of default that comes with breaching the Oct. 17 deadline, arguing that the Treasury Department could prioritize interest payments over other obligations (even though it would be illegal for the department to make that decision and practically untenable).

"We're not going to default; there is no default," Mulvaney said. "If the president wants to lie to the public, I can't stop him."

So while downplaying the consequences of breaching the Oct. 17 deadline, House Republicans have kept up their demands to tinker with Obamacare before raising the debt limit or reopening the government.

If the debt limit isn't increased before the Treasury Department depletes its cash balance, according to a Goldman Sachs report, there could be a "rapid downturn in economic activity." The firm estimates that after just a month of breaching the debt limit, there would be a 4.2 percent drop in annualized GDP. Most predict that unemployment would rise, interest rates would soar and the world economy would suffer.

"There is nobody in this field who understands how financial markets work and understands what the impact of default would be on the global economy who accepts the absurd position taken by the debt limit or default deniers," Carney said Tuesday. "This is a serious matter."

Carney rejected the idea that a delay of a few days in catastrophic consequences could undermine the administration's warnings.

"What's a risk is even flirting with the idea that we should try to wait until the very last moment before a bill comes due that we can't pay," he said. "This is what some Republicans on Capitol Hill seem to be conveying -- that we can cross that threshold and just hope that we can resolve this before we have to delay a payment."

He continued, "Already, once you get to that deadline, you've entered territory that we've never entered before. And that sends a signal, I think, globally that there is uncertainty about the fidelity here in the United States to the principle that we always pay our bills on time. And that is why this line has never been crossed."