US Coast Guard won't see paychecks due to government shutdown
militarytimes.com
militarytimes.com
There have been quite a few reports of USAA not offering loans to those who are affected by this -- and other credit unions (NFCU) only offering $1000 as a quick loan...
If the banks don't want to deal with the risk of this until the shutdown is over, this makes me believe that the shutdown will last a while.
Interestingly enough, Congresspeople's staff are not getting paid during this break as well -- but the congressfolks are.
USAA and NFCU, while they do serve government employees, primarily cater to the DoD with these types of programs.
Congressional salaries need to be free of the influence of presidents threatening to shutdown government if their agenda isn't voted on, otherwise the threat of withheld pay could substantially effect how congresspeople vote.
That's a bigger problem, even if the optics of congresspeople still getting paid during a shutdown is bad.
The executive’s cooperation is not needed here. The president cannot shut down the government. The most he can do is veto a law, and congress can override it.
And yet for all intents and purposes he has, because he's wielding his veto powers and congress hasn't passed a law to stay open by default.
Now imagine the dynamic where congressional salaries were being withheld also, and is it possible that it could influence the votes of ~10 or so senators Trump needs to get wall funding approved?
Maybe, maybe not, but it's not a healthy dynamic for the president to be able to exert such direct financial pressure on congresspeople.
> Congress could just pass a law saying the government stays open by default
You say 'just', but do you really see the current congress passing such a law? I don't think it is just that simple.
I don’t think this financial pressure would change anything. But it would be trivial to avoid if they wanted to.
And not paying Congress would require a constitutional amendment so not really worth the consternation.
The defused blame sets the game matrix to a state where the delta value between the bill congress agrees on and the bill the president will sign is significantly larger than the defecting penalty any oneside side will suffer. Removing a paycheck from all actors won't provide a significant adjustment to the game matrix, because the reputation deduction portion of the the defector penalty is significantly more valuable than salary. Some actors actually see a reputation increase for fighting this fight.
While increasing the defector penalty is a good idea, reduction of salary doesn't increase it much.
you forgot: or pass a bill the president can't sign, by overriding a veto
but that also requires even greater consensus than Congress can currently achieve.
Are you talking about passing a bill with such a high majority that the president cannot veto the bill? I wonder if the budget was ever passed with such a majority.
I hope we can stop treating politics as a silly statistics game theory simulation for every actor and decision, because two decades of thinking like that has clearly not worked out for us. New ways of thinking, including consequences for bad actors, are a way to move the needle forward a bit even if it's not Spock's ideal solution.
why do you think this? I would wager that most people are acting in the way they think is best, either for themselves or the people around them, either of which is a form of self-interest. Often in my experience what seems to me to be irrational from the outside is in fact very rational, and I just didn't have all the pertinent information.
Some of the examples that I can think of are
Exercise good for health is known fact.
Eating healthy food.
Global warming consideration in day today work.
Cigarette smoking.
Continuous study vs last minute study for exams.I think people act very strategically with their political careers, and while they may make blunders they are caused by bad luck and incompetence more than a lack of rational thought, especially at the national level.
You are assuming other people's goals - "good for you" is not always a clear objective measure. For some example counters:
> Exercise good for health is known fact.
> Eating healthy food.
It also takes more time and most people find exercise and health food somewhat unpleasant compared to not taking these choices. If you're not optimising for longevity (which most people aren't, and it's not immediately obvious that they should given you're arguably subtracting usable time now to add time later on) then these aren't inherently rational choices.
> Global warming consideration in day today work.
This is a classic externality. It's perfectly logical to not shoulder the burden of trying to save the planet, especially if you don't think your efforts will make a difference. It's more of a moral responsibility, which while perfectly valid, it's not inherently rational to accept said responsibilities.
> Cigarette smoking.
There are many reasons people smoke, even though they know they're bad for you (though arguably lung cancer falls under the "won't happen to me" and "it's a problem for future me" logic fallacies, though then again people tend to positively weight benefits in youth vs costs in old age which seems sensible-ish). Social status. Being able to remain in the "in-group" if friends smoke. A feeling of danger or risk of being caught. All of these are reasons someone might start smoking as a teenager. which AFAIK is when most smokers start.
> Continuous study vs last minute study for exams.
That's genuinely irrational, and obviously ties into the way our brains work. My point wasn't that people are never irrational; it was that often behaviours that seem irrational from the outside make some kind of sense from the perspective of the participant/s. People don't generally just do things for no reason and rationality is inseparable from context.
A little more complicated, but it was sparked by the inability to pass the supply bill, which funds government expenditure.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salaries_of_members_of_the_Uni...
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United...
They should have done unpaid overtime until the situation was resolved.
Better yet, every single one of them should automatically lose their position and have a forced election to replace them (..maybe they can run again for the job they already have).
How many people can just walk out of their job with no consequences?
Nor the power to pardon for that matter.
The country should have learned from Nixon that modeling the president as an elected 18th century king is long obsolete.
Without veto power Congress could ram through all manner of pork barrel spending without anyone to check them.
The US Coast Guard has a rather different remit to the RNLI which is devoted purely to rescue. I believe the USCG has other duties as well. Contrast: https://www.uscg.mil/ and https://rnli.org/
The UK and Eire have a huge coastline relative to their land area and the RNLI are a treasured institution. Mostly staffed by volunteers and financed as a charity. We also have a Coast Guard which is actually responsible for search and rescue at sea. It's a little bit complicated but you will be pulled out of the water by a very highly trained civilian volunteer.
There is no reason not to start a non military ANLI. The RNLI already have boat designs that are proven and a operational model that is also proven. Just copy it.
You (US) have made your choice on how you want to be rescued at sea and we have made ours. They are simply different models on how to do it.
Once the RNLI was founded as a charity there was of course no pragmatic reason to dedicate tax money to that mission, so here we are today. The contracted Coast Guard helicopter pilots on £150k each hovering beside a lifeboat staffed by volunteers. Whilst the paid RNLI executives sleep.
Something's not right there and that's not a model I'd encourage others to adopt. If maritime rescue is considered worthwhile then it should be professionally rewarded, and at all levels.