Government shutdowns and public relations

[Bronco]

-
They seem to be putting BarryCades up even if it isn't necessary...wonder why?

National Park Service Blocks Access To Montana Fishing Sites…

Via NRO:

In response to the government shutdown, the National Park Service has erected eight-foot-long concrete barriers to prevent anglers from launching their boats at two fishing access sites along the Bighorn River in Montana, according to a Billings Gazette report.

Anglers are supposed to pay a fee for using the sites at a nearby Park Service station, but Rick Law, an employee of the Bighorn Trout Shop, told the Billings Gazette that he hasn’t seen any NPS employees manning the station all summer. “I could see it if they had people up here working, monitoring and picking up trash, but they’re not,” Law said. [...]

Concrete barriers also blocked access to a federally run launch site at the nearby Bighorn Reservoir, with a roadside “interpretive site” cordoned off with yellow caution tape.

[BlueHen86]

Why are people worried about parks? There are people who aren't getting paid, and assholes are worried about parks and national monuments.

[Bronco]

-
White House... We Didn’t Say That Thing We Said


Via Politico’s Manu Raju:

Via Daily Caller:

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney was left playing damage control Friday after a “senior administration official” told The Wall Street Journal that the administration doesn’t care how long the government shutdown continues.

“We are winning,” the unnamed official told the Journal. “It doesn’t really matter to us” how long the shutdown lasts “because what matters is the end result,” the official said.

“This is absurd,” Carney tweeted Friday, after political observers noted the callousness of the administration’s supposed position. “POTUS wants the shutdown to end NOW. Speaker can do that NOW by putting a clean CR to a vote.”

“We utterly disavow idea WH doesn’t care when it ends. House should act now, no strings attached,” he added.

Reporters and bloggers were quick to note the irony of the White House press secretary rejecting a statement by a “senior administration official.”

[Bronco]

-
Closing scenic turnouts

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7RCKKrRf24[/youtube]

[DSUrocks07]

Ugh. I am so sick of this misinformation.

Congress is not exempt from ACA.

Quite the opposite, in fact.

Congress and their staffs are actually required to get insurance through the exchanges.

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/05/congre ... obamacare/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Be against ACA/Obamacare if you want... but, get your facts straight.

Jelly is correct, but leaves out one key fact...once they realized how much they would be SCREWED, they demanded, and got 0Bama, to somehow grant them a huge subsidy to pay for their ACA care...something that the common person can't get...

"The rich should pay their fair share, except our Congressmen"

Donks

[BlueHen86]

-
Closing scenic turnouts

Holy shit! They didn't really shut that down did they? Is nothing sacred? No doubt Obama is in the war room going over parks on a case by case basis deciding which ones to close based on use by conks. Damn him.

I can't believe the Gov't actually closed a park. If only parks were in the Bill of Rights.

[BlueHen86]

Jelly is correct, but leaves out one key fact...once they realized how much they would be SCREWED, they demanded, and got 0Bama, to somehow grant them a huge subsidy to pay for their ACA care...something that the common person can't get...

"The rich should pay their fair share, except our Congressmen"

Donks

Yes, because everybody know that most people in congress are donks.

[kalm]

86hen... Conks please take note .

[Bronco]

-
Harry

Harry Reid Today: “We Have Negotiated Our Hearts Out”
Harry Reid yesterday: “We Will Not Negotiate”…

http://www.talkradionews.com/congress/2 ... k-bv1P-t5o" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[93henfan]

There are two things happening that should give Col H and me some certainty going into next week:

1. Pentagon lawyers are working to get a determination that all DoD civilians should never have been furloughed under a broad interpretation of the wording of the Pay Our Military Act. There is some expectation that this could get 400,000 DoD employees back to work early next week.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/10/0 ... ntractors/

2. House Resolution 3223 is up for vote today and appears to have broad bipartisan support as well as precedent. This would provide retroactive pay.
http://www.fedsmith.com/2013/10/03/hous ... employees/

[Bronco]

-
Now the Shutdown Is Really Hitting Home
Be strong moonbats and carry on as best you can...

[Skjellyfetti]

Jelly is correct, but leaves out one key fact...once they realized how much they would be SCREWED, they demanded, and got 0Bama, to somehow grant them a huge subsidy to pay for their ACA care...something that the common person can't get...

First, do you actually want the "common man" to be able to get healthcare subsidized by the federal government? Single payer.... let's go!

Second, the federal government is their employer. You can call it a "federal subsidy" if you want.... but, I don't see it as out-of-line, looking at it from an employer - employee relationship.

The government, on average, pays about 75% of the premiums for members of Congress and other federal workers, while workers pay the other 25%. That’s comparable to what big firms kick in for coverage, says Paul Fronstin of the Employee Benefits Research Institute.

With members of Congress and their staffs being forced to buy insurance on the exchanges beginning in 2014, the real question regarding Congress is how the government can continue to offer some sort of health care benefit for those federal employees, the way most big employers do, since it can no longer cover a portion of the premium. Few, if any, Congressional staffers would qualify for the low-income subsidies. That means their net insurance costs would rise considerably if they were forced to buy from an exchange with no support at all from their employer. The basic idea is to make Congressional employees whole by giving them a new benefit that’s more or less equal to what they’ll be losing when they can no longer participate in the government’s health care offerings.

The Office of Personnel Management, which is the government’s HR department, finally decided this summer that the government will give Congressional employees a tax-free subsidy roughly equivalent to the value of the benefit they’ve been getting until now. That will help offset the unsubsidized cost of insurance bought through an exchange.

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exch ... 49342.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Col Hogan]

Jelly is correct, but leaves out one key fact...once they realized how much they would be SCREWED, they demanded, and got 0Bama, to somehow grant them a huge subsidy to pay for their ACA care...something that the common person can't get...

First, do you actually want the "common man" to be able to get healthcare subsidized by the federal government? Single payer.... let's go!

Second, the federal government is their employer. You can call it a "federal subsidy" if you want.... but, I don't see it as out-of-line, looking at it from an employer - employee relationship.

The government, on average, pays about 75% of the premiums for members of Congress and other federal workers, while workers pay the other 25%. That’s comparable to what big firms kick in for coverage, says Paul Fronstin of the Employee Benefits Research Institute.

With members of Congress and their staffs being forced to buy insurance on the exchanges beginning in 2014, the real question regarding Congress is how the government can continue to offer some sort of health care benefit for those federal employees, the way most big employers do, since it can no longer cover a portion of the premium. Few, if any, Congressional staffers would qualify for the low-income subsidies. That means their net insurance costs would rise considerably if they were forced to buy from an exchange with no support at all from their employer. The basic idea is to make Congressional employees whole by giving them a new benefit that’s more or less equal to what they’ll be losing when they can no longer participate in the government’s health care offerings.

The Office of Personnel Management, which is the government’s HR department, finally decided this summer that the government will give Congressional employees a tax-free subsidy roughly equivalent to the value of the benefit they’ve been getting until now. That will help offset the unsubsidized cost of insurance bought through an exchange.

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exch ... 49342.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So, what you are saying is that they should have read the law before they rammed it thorough, instead of asking for special exemption...

Everything in the attached article is true, except THAT'S NOT HOW THE LAW READS...

But we all know Congress is above the law...

[CID1990]

Jelly is correct, but leaves out one key fact...once they realized how much they would be SCREWED, they demanded, and got 0Bama, to somehow grant them a huge subsidy to pay for their ACA care...something that the common person can't get...

First, do you actually want the "common man" to be able to get healthcare subsidized by the federal government? Single payer.... let's go!

Second, the federal government is their employer. You can call it a "federal subsidy" if you want.... but, I don't see it as out-of-line, looking at it from an employer - employee relationship.

The government, on average, pays about 75% of the premiums for members of Congress and other federal workers, while workers pay the other 25%. That’s comparable to what big firms kick in for coverage, says Paul Fronstin of the Employee Benefits Research Institute.

With members of Congress and their staffs being forced to buy insurance on the exchanges beginning in 2014, the real question regarding Congress is how the government can continue to offer some sort of health care benefit for those federal employees, the way most big employers do, since it can no longer cover a portion of the premium. Few, if any, Congressional staffers would qualify for the low-income subsidies. That means their net insurance costs would rise considerably if they were forced to buy from an exchange with no support at all from their employer. The basic idea is to make Congressional employees whole by giving them a new benefit that’s more or less equal to what they’ll be losing when they can no longer participate in the government’s health care offerings.

The Office of Personnel Management, which is the government’s HR department, finally decided this summer that the government will give Congressional employees a tax-free subsidy roughly equivalent to the value of the benefit they’ve been getting until now. That will help offset the unsubsidized cost of insurance bought through an exchange.

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exch ... 49342.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Wow. I don't think there's anything you can't justify.

[Bronco]

Feds Try to Close the OCEAN Because of Shutdown
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/10/03/3 ... butor.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Just before the weekend, the National Park Service informed charter boat captains in Florida that the Florida Bay was "closed" due to the shutdown. Until government funding is restored, the fishing boats are prohibited from taking anglers into 1,100 square-miles of open ocean. Fishing is also prohibited at Biscayne National Park during the shutdown.

The Park Service will also have rangers on duty to police the ban. Of access to an ocean. The government will probably use more personnel and spend more resources to attempt to close the ocean, than it would in its normal course of business.

This is governing by temper-tantrum. It is on par with the government's ham-fisted attempts to close the DC WWII Memorial, an open-air public monument that is normally accessible 24 hours a day. By accessible I mean, you walk up to it. When you have finished reflecting, you then walk away from it.

At least that Memorial is an actual structure, with some kind of perimeter that can be fenced off. Florida Bay is the ocean. How, pray tell, do you "close" 1,100 square miles of ocean? Why would one even need to do so?

Apparently, according to an anonymous Park Service ranger, “We’ve been told to make life as difficult for people as we can. It’s disgusting.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/3 ... mark-steyn" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Centuries ago, King Canute famously failed to command the ocean tide to stop. His display was actually a means to educate his subjects on the limits of royal power. Today, however, our President actually believes he has the power to control the oceans.

[SDHornet]

There are two things happening that should give Col H and me some certainty going into next week:

1. Pentagon lawyers are working to get a determination that all DoD civilians should never have been furloughed under a broad interpretation of the wording of the Pay Our Military Act. There is some expectation that this could get 400,000 DoD employees back to work early next week.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/10/0 ... ntractors/

2. House Resolution 3223 is up for vote today and appears to have broad bipartisan support as well as precedent. This would provide retroactive pay.
http://www.fedsmith.com/2013/10/03/hous ... employees/

I heard on the radio that there has never been a shutdown that has ever left Fed employees without back pay. I don't think the one will be any different. Enjoy the free vacay.

[SDHornet]

First, do you actually want the "common man" to be able to get healthcare subsidized by the federal government? Single payer.... let's go!

Second, the federal government is their employer. You can call it a "federal subsidy" if you want.... but, I don't see it as out-of-line, looking at it from an employer - employee relationship.



http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exch ... 49342.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Wow. I don't think there's anything you can't justify.

He can't justify how Obama gave the big bad evil big businesses an exemption and how Obama is unwilling to do the same for everyone else.

[CID1990]

The government tried to make sequestration as painful as possible. It was a total bust, but for some reason they are doubling down on it this time around.

Regardless of opinions on the shutdown, the optics on how this is being handled are very bad. It looks like the administration is playing politics with veterans, and whether they are or not, it looks very bad. A lot simpler to put up signs that simply say, "this monument is unattended, we apologize for the inconvenience". That would call attention to the shutdown without creating all the acrimony.

[93henfan]

There are two things happening that should give Col H and me some certainty going into next week:

1. Pentagon lawyers are working to get a determination that all DoD civilians should never have been furloughed under a broad interpretation of the wording of the Pay Our Military Act. There is some expectation that this could get 400,000 DoD employees back to work early next week.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/10/0 ... ntractors/

2. House Resolution 3223 is up for vote today and appears to have broad bipartisan support as well as precedent. This would provide retroactive pay.
http://www.fedsmith.com/2013/10/03/hous ... employees/

I heard on the radio that there has never been a shutdown that has ever left Fed employees without back pay. I don't think the one will be any different. Enjoy the free vacay.

You mean like the six weeks of 20% unpaid furlough that I just got done with?

Think before you talk man.

[BlueHen86]

Why is it that Republicans get the blame for government shut downs? It's amazing.

In the 1990s, Congress sent Bill Clinton a spending Bill. Clinton vetoed it. He's the one that took the action to shut down the government. HE shut down the government. Yet it was perceived as the Republican Congress shutting down the government. And I think that most people of today think that Congress shut the government down on that occasion. But it's objectively not true. The President did it.

Now, It's not quite as clear cut. But if government shuts down it will be at least as much the responsibility of the President and the Democrat controlled Senate as it is of the Republican controlled House. One could say the Democrats would rather shut down the government than delay funding of the Affordable Care Act. And one could say that the Republicans would rather shut down the government than NOT delay the funding.

But it's clearly not just "The Republicans Shutting Down Government." Democrats are clearly at least as "culpable."

So why is it that the Democrats are always successful in putting the "blame" on the Republicans when this sort of thing happens?

Without reading the entire thread I will put in my

The liberal media is blaming the GOP, the conservative media is blaming the Dems and both sides are blaming each other. The standoff will continue until the public opinion sways largely in favor of one side.

I think the Dems have a slight advantage in the court of public opinion because most people have no clue as to what is going on, so they base their opinion on sound bites. Right or wrong, the Dem sound bites are better, all they have to do is keep asking for an up and down vote in the house and the GOP comes off as obstructionist.

[93henfan]

Why is it that Republicans get the blame for government shut downs? It's amazing.

In the 1990s, Congress sent Bill Clinton a spending Bill. Clinton vetoed it. He's the one that took the action to shut down the government. HE shut down the government. Yet it was perceived as the Republican Congress shutting down the government. And I think that most people of today think that Congress shut the government down on that occasion. But it's objectively not true. The President did it.

Now, It's not quite as clear cut. But if government shuts down it will be at least as much the responsibility of the President and the Democrat controlled Senate as it is of the Republican controlled House. One could say the Democrats would rather shut down the government than delay funding of the Affordable Care Act. And one could say that the Republicans would rather shut down the government than NOT delay the funding.

But it's clearly not just "The Republicans Shutting Down Government." Democrats are clearly at least as "culpable."

So why is it that the Democrats are always successful in putting the "blame" on the Republicans when this sort of thing happens?

Without reading the entire thread I will put in my

The liberal media is blaming the GOP, the conservative media is blaming the Dems and both sides are blaming each other. The standoff will continue until the public opinion sways largely in favor of one side.

I think the Dems have a slight advantage in the court of public opinion because most people have no clue as to what is going on, so they base their opinion on sound bites. Right or wrong, the Dem sound bites are better, all they have to do is keep asking for an up and down vote in the house and the GOP comes off as obstructionist.

Good post. As much as the Tea Party got the shutdown started by refusing to pass a clean CR, the Dems could just as easily allow a compromise as simple as elimination of the medical device tax to ride on a CR. Alas, Harry Reid and Obama are too vain to allow Cruz to thump his chest over a small victory.

[BlueHen86]

Without reading the entire thread I will put in my

The liberal media is blaming the GOP, the conservative media is blaming the Dems and both sides are blaming each other. The standoff will continue until the public opinion sways largely in favor of one side.

I think the Dems have a slight advantage in the court of public opinion because most people have no clue as to what is going on, so they base their opinion on sound bites. Right or wrong, the Dem sound bites are better, all they have to do is keep asking for an up and down vote in the house and the GOP comes off as obstructionist.

Good post. As much as the Tea Party got the shutdown started by refusing to pass a clean CR, the Dems could just as easily allow a compromise as simple as elimination of the medical device tax to ride on a CR. Alas, Harry Reid and Obama are too vain to allow Cruz to thump his chest over a small victory.

Agreed. Both sides are more interested in "winning" the conflict than they are resolving it with compromise. Your suggestion sounds reasonable, but the Dems think they are "winning", so they don't see the need to compromise.

[Bronco]

A friend in S Dakota was telling me that they are closing the roads leading up to Mt Rushmore so folks can't see it from the road...why?

Another one that doesn't make sense to me

Military Chaplains Threatened With Arrest If They Celebrate Mass On Bases During Shutdown…

Via Daily Caller:

In a stunning development, some military priests are facing arrest if they celebrate mass or practice their faith on military bases during the federal government shutdown.

“With the government shutdown, many [government service] and contract priests who minister to Catholics on military bases worldwide are not permitted to work – not even to volunteer,” wrote John Schlageter, the general counsel for the Archdiocese for the Military Services USA, in an op-ed this week. “During the shutdown, it is illegal for them to minister on base and they risk being arrested if they attempt to do so.”

According to its website, the Archdiocese for the Military Services “provides the Catholic Church’s full range of pastoral ministries and spiritual services to those in the United States Armed Forces.”

[BlueHen86]

A friend in S Dakota was telling me that they are closing the roads leading up to Mt Rushmore so folks can't see it from the road...why?

Another one that doesn't make sense to me

That's not true. They are only blocking the view of Lincoln as he is the only Republican. It's part of Obama's park-by-park shut down plan.

[Col Hogan]

A friend in S Dakota was telling me that they are closing the roads leading up to Mt Rushmore so folks can't see it from the road...why?

Another one that doesn't make sense to me

That's not true. They are only blocking the view of Lincoln as he is the only Republican. It's part of Obama's park-by-park shut down plan.

And there are posts on Facebook of people tossing aside the traffic cones and going up to Mt Rushmore...

The NPS does not have enough police to keep this politically motivated action by the Administration going...unless they bring in the military...