Some Countries Think That Their Space Program Is Important
Some countries think that their space program is important. #NASA @NASA #governmentshutdown #shutdown pic.twitter.com/gw3zM6tczm
— NASA Watch (@NASAWatch) January 19, 2019
Some countries think that their space program is important. #NASA @NASA #governmentshutdown #shutdown pic.twitter.com/gw3zM6tczm
— NASA Watch (@NASAWatch) January 19, 2019
Of course, in a one party system there are no opposing views since those that disagree just “disappear”…
You’re not wrong. Still waiting for a decent compromise that will re-open the government.
What would you consider a decent compromise?
Decent or not, people need to realize our federal government is basically designed to promote gridlock. Unless there is a consensus in favor of the federal government doing something, the system is set up to make it hard for the government to do that something. That’s why it takes a vote by two legislative branches (elected in different ways) and the approval of the President. Something a large fraction of the people strongly object to isn’t likely to pass through those three hoops.
That means linking unrelated activities, when both sides are in strong and inflexible disagreement is dangerous. At some point, the only productive thing to do is agree to disagree on one issue, and move on to issues you can agree (or compromise on.) Shutting down NASA (or the FAA or TSA or…) over border security isn’t productive.
And for the things people just can’t agree on, it might help to accept the fact that no one is going to get exactly what they want. Without taking sides in the border wall issue (other than noting how well that approach has worked in Berlin and the occupied territories), at some point, people just have to say, “Since I’m not going to get X, the next best thing is Y.” Even if the other side is against Y, if they hate X enough, they might compromise on Y.
Yep, when both sides are not happy but are satisfied you have a compromise on an issue. That is still missing here.
In terms of walls working, they actually do reduce the rate of crossing. The Berlin Wall didn’t stop everyone, but it did stop a large percent of those wanting to leave from doing so. The number of defections to the West dropped drastically after it was built. It is no accident the percentage of illegal border crossings has been dropping the last twenty plus years the wall has been under construction and forcing individuals into more remote areas where there are gaps in it. No, it won’t stop 100%, but it will reduce it to a more managible level.
Now personally I would go in the other direction and just make a labor agreement with Mexico allowing as many Mexican nationals as they wished to work in the U.S.A. But in return the Mexican government would have to stop migrate workers from other nations from crossing in via Mexico. That would be far more effective. Such an agreement would also end the exploitation of Mexican workers by employers because there would be minimum pay requirements as well a requirements in terms of working conditions and treatment of workers. And the workers wouldn’t have to worry about deportation if they reported violations. But no one cares what economists think about it.
The effectiveness of the Berlin Wall may have had something to do with the srmed guards with machine guns.
Yes, turning the entite nation of East Germany into a prison. Isn’t socialism wonderful!
But if walls don’t work at keeping folks out why are they so popular for thousands of years around the world? And what is wrong about requiring folks who want to enter the U.S.A. going through a check point and not just wander in?
>But if walls don’t work at keeping folks out why are they so popular for thousands of years
“It’s tradition, that makes it okay” -Weird Al Yankovic, from “Weasel Stomping Day”
Seriously, how often do people just wander in across the parts of the border in question? It sounds like these are the sections of the border which aren’t near roads, and in fairly un-wanderable terrain. As you have pointed out, we already have walls along the more accessible parts of the border. it also seems there are no plans to put a wall along much of the Rio Grande. I assume those are the places where people are unlikely to swim across.
And that is part of the problem. Folks do to cross over where there is no wall, fence or anything to mark the border. And they aren’t prepared for the remoteness and die in the hundreds from thirst, heat stroke, cold etc. They be dying in the thousands if the Border Patrol/ranchers didn’t do regular search and rescues in those regions of the border or if they didn’t leave out hundreds of barrels full of jugs of water.
One good thing the border wall would do is channel the border crossers back to the urban areas where conditions are less harsh. Not everyone, but thousands would no longer have any incentive to just follow the walls that exist into the wilderness until they disappear. In short it would save lives.
In terms of the Rio Grande/Rio Bravo section a wall makes less sense because the river is constantly changing course and it’s level. Ranchers on both sides also need access for their livestock. But it’s also easier to see and pick up swimmers from the numerous boats the Border Patrol uses in that section of the border.
Yes but… Italy is having problems with people crossing the Mediterranean in boats that probably aren’t adequate to cross the Chesapeake Bay safely.
In terms of the border with Mexico, Google Maps shows me just about nothing in the southwest corner of New Mexico (Hidalgo county), between a road just on the Mexican side of the border (marked route or highway or something “2”) and about 50 miles inside the US. Except a national forest, and I know that many not even imply dirt roads. And, yes, I know where Google gets their content for their map service, and relatively empty places look emptier than they really are. But Hidalgo county has a population density under 2 people per square mile, and half of them live in one town. So I think it’s safe to say it’s pretty empty.
If those sorts of natural, physical barriers don’t discourage immigrants, I have trouble seeing how a 30 foot wall would. I suspect they would just go from the official crossing points, and walk along the wall until they got to a place which wasn’t heavily patrolled. Once they get to a place where no one would notice them climbing over or digging under the wall, they would.
Yes, it is “empty and so it is very dangerous because of the lack of a wall. The ranchers there are in a state of siege from drug runners and human traffickers.
https://edgewood.news/borde…
A wall may not completely stop them, but it would slow them down enough to give the border patrol a chance to catch them. Remember, you won’t have just a physical barrier, but it would also be wired like the rest of the border to determine if folks are digging under it or climbing over it so agents know where to respond to.
https://www.engineering.com…
Border Walls Get Teched Out
Compromise is missing here because Trump’s latest proposal for “compromise” includes reinstating the protected status of DACA recipients for an additional three years. This is the protected status that the Trump Administration ended.
In other words, I take away something, then promise to give it back, but only for a limited time (so I can use it in the future as leverage in the exact same way), in order to demand that you give me something in return. That really doesn’t sound much like compromise to me.
For someone who claims to be a successful businessman this is a garbage “negotiating tactic”. Also, we don’t know how successful he is, or who he’s beholden to, because he won’t share his tax returns like every other presidential candidate has done since before I was born. It could be that no respectable bank will do business with him anymore due to just these sorts of “negotiating tactics” when his businesses get into trouble.
Actually, DACA wasn’t law and was being challenged. This is a chance for Democrats to actually make it into law which they are refusing. Getting only partial funding for a border barrier and partial reinstatement seems like actual compromise. However Democrats are refusing to even negotiate.
True DACA is being challenged in the courts, but the outcome there is by no means certain. The three years Trump is offering is still a temporary fix that kicks the can down the road (yet again) and continues the uncertainty for the DACA recipients. That’s why this offer is DOA.
The alternative that the Senate voted unanimously on in December (before the Congress control flipped to the Democrats) was a continuing resolution to reopen the government while all these issues are discussed. Trump didn’t sign. An override was clearly possible, but that is still being blocked in the Senate by McConnell.
Not surprised that he did not sign as that was the same promise they made in the three previous CR that President Trump DID sign. So he gave them three chances to keep their word. Fool me once shame on you, fool me three times and I know not to trust you anymore.
Maybe if they honored those earlier promises to discuss border security we wouldn’t have the shutdown now. Indeed, the Congress has already had plenty of time to discuss it in the last month if they intended to do so. Instead the Democrats seems more interested in organizing impeachment hearings to satisfy their egos.
Again, a compromise requires both sides to give a little. He made the first step, but the Democrats rejected it without a counter offer, so the ball is still in their court to do so. The pressure needs to be on both to make a deal before this shutdown is over. I agree with the idea that Congress and the executive branch should not be paid until the government workers get their back pay to give them a incentive to find a solution.
Yes, but a good way to agree on a compromise is to start with things everyone can agree about. It looks like a wall isn’t that starting point.
To get this back to something space related (and I can’t believe I’m saying this), I’d like to see a traceability matrix. For NASA missions, there is supposed to be a logical flowdown from high level goals to implementation.
It could be “Did the water on Earth form with the planet or did it come from subsequent comet impacts?” Then that justifies measuring oxygen and hydrogen isotope abundances in comets to a certain precision. And, to do that, someone fills in the details and writes requirements for what sort of comet, if it would take a lander, measuring surface or subsurface samples, what sort of instrument is required, etc.
If you applied the same process (and I know it can be rigged, so it isn’t perfect) to this border security issue, we could start with something everyone agrees on. Say reducing illegal immigration to a specific level, or specifically reducing crossings along unsafe parts of the border, or something similar. Then hand that requirement off to someone who knows how to implement it (someone like CBP, not the President or Congress) and have them provide approaches of how to do it and cost estimates.
If increased patrolling turns out to be a better solution than a physical wall, why get obsessed with a wall? If a second line of walls behind the ones at certain places would be more effective than filling in the existing gaps, fine. If the best solution really is a coast-to-coast wall, fine. But the starting point ought to be agreeing on the goals, and then seeing what follows from that. Starting with a specific implementation and being unwilling to consider other options doesn’t strike me as a reasonable approach.
I mentioned the Berlin wall because much of the opposition to the border wall is over the appearance. This discussion started with China and how they don’t have problems with government shutdowns. The consensus seems to be that, true or not, we wouldn’t want the United States to be a country run like China.
Similarly, the Berlin wall may have been effective, but do we want the United States to be a country which resembles the Deutsche Demokratische Republik? Even if the resemblance is superficial? I’d rather not have President Obrador start channeling for Ronald Reagan and ending a speech with “Mr. Trump, tear down this wall!”
Also, the Berlin wall (and all the inner German border, for that matter) was an effective barrier because they were densely and heavily patrolled. By border guards with permission (and orders) to shoot anyone trying to cross. I suspect that was more significant than the nature of the physical barrier.
“Something a large fraction of the people strongly object to isn’t likely to pass through those three hoops”
There are many examples of unpopular public policy (cited here without taking a side): gun control stands out, as do marginal tax rates; wide-spread bonding for public infrastructure, too, has general support.
There are several reasons: much gerrymandering has created a solid bloc of very conservative votes in the House, for instance.
At the state level, truly shocking efforts at voter suppression or the diminution of authority to an incoming governor of a different party also stand out.
So, yea. It’s entirely possible to stage a ‘rolling coup’ in America.
Those games have been going on since the nation started, and both parties are guilty of them. Remember the Daley machine in Chicago where even the dead never missed an election ?
One side gains an advantage for a few years than the other side plays the game better for a while. It is just the game of politics as played in America. But it’s also voters buying the rhetoric of one side or the other without looking under the hood. For example the current Democrat rhetoric of the border wall being something new or evil when it was actually started under a Democrat Administration decades ago.
I think your examples actually prove my point. They are all cases of _inaction_ by the federal government. Not passing certain laws, not imposing certain taxes or not funding certain projects. If there is a narrow minority, say 48%, which strongly opposes some action, there is a good chance either one house of Congress or the President will side with that 48%. Depending on how strongly they feel, or how soft the support for the other side is, an even smaller minority can block government action. Unless there is a clear consensus, the US federal government is biased towards inaction. (And, yes, inaction amounts to a policy and potentially an unpopular one.)
In contrast, in a parliamentary system, a single body has all or almost all legislature power. The executive branch is run by the people who can (usually or reliably) control a majority of votes in the legislature. Passing laws or taking action doesn’t require a clear consensus. Inaction results from something so contentious that a large number of legislators vote against their own party. (Which does happen. I used 48% as an example for a reason.)
[With apologies to J2S, here’s an answer to Dr. Matula’s question:
In summary: define the nature and extent of border security issues; write, pass, and reconcile staged and appropriate solutions). Specifically:
1. Re-open government, including back pay for as many affected as makes sense;
2. Schedule hearings in front of the House Committee on Homeland Security; the primary purpose of these hearings is to characterize our border security in general, and to diagrammatically assess border security, defining segments of various lengths ranked by porosity or other appropriate system;
3. Propose appropriate methods to answer specific segment problems;
4. Meanwhile, and perhaps concurrently, schedule hearings in front of the House Committee on the Budget; primary purpose is to assess costs and efficacy of various wall designs;
5. Similarly, schedule hearings in front of the appropriate Senate Committees, the purpose being to avoid partisan charges, or at the very least have two stories to compare;
6. And finally write, mark-up, and pass the appropriate legislation, recognizing that the real work will be done in reconciliation.
7. Required reading:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/p…
And what assurance would the President have that they would keep their word this time and do those things given how they ignored the issue after he signed the other CRs? As for holding hearings on the wall or discussing the funding options they could do that now if they wished to show good faith in it.
Also I assume you know the wall is nothing new. It was started under the Clinton Administration and work continued on it under the Bush and Obama Administrations. Nearly 600 miles of it are already built, President Trump is just seeking the funds to close the 300 odd miles of gaps that are left in it between El Paso and San Diego sections. If you google images border wall you will see what already exists along the border.
But I think you illustrate why this shutdown will last a while, namely because the Democrats want all the concessions up front without offering anything in return except promises that maybe in the future something will be done. His offer was just to get funding to fill in only 220 miles of the gap instead of finishing it. Compromise is just that, each side giving a little and getting a little, not one side giving in for vague promises of future action.
It’s off topic, but I have trouble with some of those numbers. Assuming the required funds are really $5.7 billion, and applying your numbers of 600 miles already completed and 300 miles left to go and covered by the current request, I get things I have trouble believing. That adds up to $11.4 billion already spent, and I’m surprised that would happen without more attention. It also implies a cost of $3600 per _foot_ to build the remaining 300 miles. I’m not a civil engineer or construction contractor, but $3600/foot seems pretty steep.
Remember, it’s been spent over the last 20 years. The first segment was built in the mid-1990’s so that would be only $500 million or so a year. If you wanted you could probably find the numbers buried in the past budgets. Also remember the easiest sections were done first and so costed a lot less than the remaining gaps that are in remote and rugged areas.
Like you, I’ve been wondering the same thing
There are other costs, of course: property acquisition in there; eminent domain cases for earlier wall takings are still in the courts decades later, resulting in huge fees; there is, I hope, consideration for the flow of wildlife, among other costs, including engineering, EIS and other consultants. There’s lighting, too, as well as infra-red or other detectors. And there’s whatever tech the security industry has nowadays, including secure communication.
Can we get some sort of handle on the costs associated with the construction portion? Sort of, and it involves making quite a few assumptions: first, it’s a poured-in-place wall made of ordinary concrete. The ‘bollard’ concept is a different story.
It’s possible or likely that should concrete be chosen there are other ways todo the project, including tilt-up construction, which may or not be a better solution in difficult areas but with come with their own issues; or the use of concrete blocks for part of the verticality.
What follows is an attempt to generally budget a special case of poured-in-place concrete.
There are many designs out there. Take a simple example: let’s say the wall is 25′ high, made entirely of reinforced concrete (simplicity). Let’s say that somehow there is some kind of “see through’ ability; some type of wind relief will be needed which could serve as observation, but again simplicity here.
Even so, this type of construction is far from simple; wind loading, as well as lateral materials expansion are factors, as well as the huge mass; concrete weighs about 4000 #/CY, a bit more in this case because admixtures relating to strength and surface resistance to chipping will be needed. Unless the ground is flat, like Florida, the wall system, including foundation, must be ‘stepped’, adding cost.
The foundational footing must bear the weight of the wall. It must also contribute to resisting wall overturn.
Moreover, any design will need regular vertical piers for regular vertical elements that hold the thing up and are connected to a beam at the top and likely two more horizontal. This adds more concrete. Assume that these elements taken together will double the volume of ordinary wall.
As I say, simplicity: 25′ high x 2′ deep x 1 lineal foot = 50 CF of concrete per lineal foot (LF). Since the industry works with cubic yards, the result is 50/27. Call it 2 CY/LF.
Rebar will add a non-small amount but I don’t know how to calculate it for this application. I also don’t know the cost of framing or obtaining framing materials in some remote areas, but as we shall see this isn’t likely to matter much.
In SW Florida, concrete is around $200 or so per CY, depending on the site, on accessibility, etc. Assume because of site exigencies and required pumping that wet concrete is $400/CY.
So, we have our terms; calculating a budget looks like this:
2 CY/LF x $400/CY = $800/LF
There are many factors subject to better assumptions than the ones that I made above [and I invite criticism]. Still, for a concrete wall, concrete would be the single biggest line item, and I would expect it to consume a very large portion of the overall cost. But 22% would be suspicious.
In the past what they did was to use the appropriation to build as many miles as possible based on local conditions and needs. That is why it’s steel plate in some places, concrete in others and tall vertical steel fencing in others. Each of the 300 odd miles remaining between El Paso and San Diego will present different challenges as the existing sections have. If you google “images border wall Mexico” you will see them as well as where the existing wall abruptly ends in the gaps. Also as with all government projects it will be put up for bids and although one may guess the price range it will be only a guess.
That’s a surprisingly good estimate, considering all the assumptions you had to make. This morning, I just saw a collection of statistics about this wall, and apparently, “US Customs and Border Protection (CPB) says that, on average, it costs approximately $6.5m per mile to construct a new border wall or replace existing legacy fence.” That’s $1230 per linear foot, and you ended up with $800 for material plus other things which you wouldn’t expect to double the cost.
I guess the $3600 per linear foot for the remainder of this wall isn’t as unreasonable as I thought. The CBP number would be for past construction, and that would be along the less difficult terrain and more accessible parts of the border. Between that, some of the other issues you mentioned (e.g. property and eminent domain) I suppose $3600 per linear foot isn’t absurd. I’m definitely not convinced it’s a good or effective investment, but that’s a different issue.
It is possible, in fact often likely, that supporting the ‘both sides’ meme results in silliness, as above.
The demand to start paying government workers is hardly a ‘concession’.
Wrong, as it is not about supporting both sides, but simply recognizing how our government works differently than the Chinese government. Our system of government, as opposed to China, is designed to work by compromise, so it is necessary for the two sides to work together to reach an agreement even if you think it’s silly. This is why the Democrats are just as responsible as the Republicans in the government shutdown. If they really wanted to end it they would be in constant negotiations with the Republicans in Congress and the White House instead of playing the blame game. Yes, that is harsh, but it is reality.
BTW The only time you had mostly one party rule even in a section of the nation was in the South just before the Civil War when pro-slavery Democrats controlled all of the Southern states. Republicans were not even allowed on the ballot in many states. We know how that experiment in single party rule turned out. Even though Democrats were few and far between in the North during the war President Lincoln recognizing the need to preserve a two party system went out of his way to pick a Democrat as his Vice-President in 1864 and in doing so helped to preserve our two party system. Folks at the time, especially Republicans, thought that was foolish, but we now know better.
https://www.facebook.com/No…
You do know that FB is evil, right? And not having an account is a badge of honor? 🙂
Ya I heard hammers are evil too, people will hit other people over the head with them.
#1 (ending partial “shutdown”) eliminates any reason to do anything.
As a percentage, Congressional hearings that result in a problem being fixed is very small. I even thought people knew hearings were only theater for constituents.
The assumption is they want to solve the problem. They don’t, which is why the present situation exists. The institutions created it.
One side in Congress is tied to the Chamber of Commerce and wants cheap labor.
The other side wants to replace the US population with a more submissive one educated in Third World values; deference to authority and dependence.
The US has been an annoying thorn in their side the last 250 years and they have been working diligently to make the old Dark Age mentality seem enlilghtened and fresh again.
Both groups in Congress have much more in common with the ruling class in other countries than the plumber who lives next door.
This is the stage where the country is being plundered and subverted by both ruling sides who are different manifestations of the same thing.
The one with authority who still feels a connection to the principles of the country the shrinking majority share (the President) has to hold feet to the fire of those super-brilliant and elightened elites who have “transcended” the US as a nation and rediscovered the conveniences of human trafficking and a dependent population.
“#1 (ending partial “shutdown”) eliminates any reason to do anything”
Except, maybe, to actually govern the country?
Oh, wait…
But let’s be honest without the shutdown NASA still wouldn’t be launching a crew to space. Sure maybe next month SpaceX can get the go ahead for crew demo but the long wait for a manned SLS/Orion flight drags on regardless of a shutdown.
I agree completely, but without NASA, even Space X is delayed.
Only Dragon2. Starhopper and the Starship are roaring forward.
— and there is never a new premier either !
Letting our infrastructure continue to shrink and our space program and science efforts continue to decline will have serious long term consequences. These consequences will not be offset by easy rhetoric or assertions that we are the greatest country in the world.
Sure, NASA may be declining but America has more options than NASA.
Options without action are just empty air.
You will be seeing a lot of actions in Texas soon ?
Until SpaceX is ready to do a test flight. That would take FAA approval and licensing. Actually, since the whole process probably takes a while, SpaceX will probably hit the problem a month or more before their first planned test flight.
Actually since the Starhopper won’t have a crew and will not be entering control airspace being limited to only 5 km of altitude they may not need any approval. It will only be need for the orbital version. That was probably another reason Elon Musk decided to go with the Starhopper as a first step.
Not on for much and on short notice. Privately funded space companies don’t have a large workforce, and one (SpaceX) seems to be limiting their workforce and keeping it tightly focused on their current needs. Privately funded satellite manufacturers aren’t in dire need of more people, with the possible exception of the ones working on small satellite constellations. But they tend to be small, and it isn’t clear that they have the resources to greatly increase their workforce. I can assure you the non-government funding space science is very limited.
If the shutdown continues, many NASA employees and contractors will be forced to find jobs elsewhere. Even if they have enough money in the bank to wait it out, many made decide they deal with a shutdown again, and leave anyway. That doesn’t mean they will get jobs with a private space company, or get non-government funding for scientific research. I don’t think enough jobs are out there. They will end up leaving the field entirely. There are far more opportunities for in other fields.
That’s not to say I would object to a shift from NASA to private space activities. But a government shutdown which drives people away from NASA isn’t a good way to do that. If you don’t want to lose talent, it needs to be something like having NASA gradually outsource more and more tasks, and letting the workforce shift over the course of years. Commercial crew and the idea of commercial transportation to the Moon could do that.
Yes, a gradual shift to out sourcing, phasing NASA out of the transportation business and perhaps developing a matching grant system for space science as a supplement to the existing system would be preferable. In terms of NASA recall that a large portion of its workforce is eligible for retirement. I expect many will be looking at the option very shortly if the shutdown continues and yes, it will be a huge brain drain since it will be the senior managers who have most of the institutional memory and wisdom. Sad.
I’m not so sure NASA could fairly be characterized as ‘declining’; I say this mostly because I understand any view I have is necessarily limited to the specific portions of NASA activity that interest me (aeronautics, not so much, for instance).
It can become an abandoned rusted ruin and museum pieces to the greatness of our great grandparents, and that is infinity more desirable that living in a regime like China that is unaccountable to the people, including and especially in this specific case, on the issue of spending the people’s money.
The comparison being made here is that our liberal democracy can’t agree how to spend taxpayer dollars while China’s authoritarian regime has no disagreements and can continue without interruption. Why would Earth would we want to be that? Space is important. But it’s not *that* important.
Yeah, I’d rather ground all our space vehicles and everything else so that our elected officials, some of which were recently the beneficiaries of a peaceful transfer of power, can sort its disagreements, than be living in an authoritarian regime where that never happens because the leader decrees there is no disagreements.
I’m old fashioned like that.
There is absolutely nothing admirable about the way China goes abouts its business compared to us. There is nothing more fundamental or important than the right to change ones government.
If that means we miss some damn launch window, small price to pay.
” the right thing to do”
Now there’s a phrase not much heard in corporate America.
Or in Washington
China is probably a bad example, since the reason for their stable funding is objectionable to many Americans.
It’s worth noting that the European Space Agency also doesn’t get shutdown over unrelated budget or political issues. Between multi-year funding plans, a mix of mandatory and optional contributions, and the fact that those contributions come from multiple sources (mostly three or four countries and the EU, with smaller contributions from many other countries), their funding is fairly stable. At least, not unstable to the point of having multi-week shutdowns.
I also note that the United States constitution does not prohibit multi-year funding. (Although the army is specifically limited to a two or less years.) I’m not sure if multi-year funding for a non-military government department or agency is unprecedented. It’s certainly not the current practice, and congress would probably hate to give up year-by-year control. But it would be legal.
A development corporation similar to the TVA model also wouldn’t be effective since it would have borrowing authority and revenue options, neither of which are available to NASA.
Regardless of the political reasons, shutdowns need to stop being an integral part of our political bargaining process.
I’m not familiar with the constitutional requirements for congressional budgets, would it be possible to pass a law stating that if no budget is agreed, all departments will continue operating with the previous year’s funding levels?
It looks like Congressman Derek Kilmer from Washington believes this is possible, at least from a legal perspective.
Of course, I would never expect such sanity from this Congress and this Administration, the entire leadership distrusts each other on a personal level, so I’m not hopeful that anything constructive will get done at all in the next two years. But a future government, probably with Congress and the White House run by the same party and therefore not inclined to kill each other, might be able to get this done.
Yes, you hit on what the Democrats are probably hoping for and why they have no incentive to negotiate. I guess they see the hardship to the government workers as acceptable collateral damage for winning the next election. Yes, Washington is broken. Sad, very sad.
Don’t know about the democratic party, but certainly Mr. Trump views government workers as collateral damage in this fight. I believe he’s said that explicitly. And I imagine he thinks if he wins this battle, that greatly increases his chances of winning the next election. The House at least has some principle on its side, since allowing the executive branch to use shutdowns to force appropriations would make the congress’ constitutional role meaningless.
I guess that would be an automatic continuing resolution and it ought to be legal, within limits. Multi-year funding is constitutional, so one year’s appropriations bills could simply have a clause saying, “In the absence of any further legislation, we appropriate the same amount for the year after that.” You couldn’t do that for more than two years for the Army’s budget (specifically prohibited in Article I, Section 8) and I suspect leaving it completely open ended would end up being contested in court. Also, carrying over from one Congress to another might raise political objections.
It’s been a number of weeks now, so I don’t have the details solidly in my head, but apparently shutdowns are triggered by relatively recent amendments (in particular one in 1976) to a law from the civil war era. It seems in those days administration departments and agencies, in particular the military, would spend their appropriations as quickly as possible, and thereby force congress to allocate more.
So a law intended to prevent the executive branch from usurping the role of the congress in deciding appropriations is now being used to do just that. Somewhat ironic.
Anyway, this was all from wikipedia I believe. I just googled “history of government shutdowns” or something similar, and the wikipedia page came up, amongst others. If I recall correctly, there were no shutdowns prior to 1976.