Government shutdown (price-capped) markets in everything

Dozens of air traffic controllers are keeping Austin-Bergstrom International Airport functioning smoothly through the longest government shutdown in US history — and all without a paycheck.

Friday was the first payday since the shutdown began and while hundreds of thousands of federal workers can expect to be paid for the work they put in during the shutdown, they are not receiving paychecks until it ends. Tuesday marks Day 25 of the shutdown.

Austin pilots want to do what they can to help their aviation fellows who are affected by the shutdown.

“Those controllers have always had my back, during the normal flights and the rare times that I’ve had a slight abnormal flight that caused me concern,” Ken VeArd said, a longtime pilot.

VeArd recently posted on social media asking his fellow pilots to help him give back to ABIA’s controllers.

“I just made a post saying this is what I am thinking about doing and before I knew it, it just got out of control,” he said. “Whether you need diapers, milk or eggs, or even if all you need is a six pack of beer,” VeArd hopes it’s the small things that will make a difference.

He’s been buying $20 gift cards from H-E-B for the controllers.

“My biggest concern with this thing is that we try to do something nice for our air traffic control friends and it turns out to be a problem, we don’t want to make problems any worse than it is,” VeArd said. “So we capped it at $20.”

Here is the full story, via Air Genius Gary Leff.

Comments

These pilots and controllers are all socialists that feast on the blood of taxpayers. Trump should fire these parasites to reduce the enforced violence of taxation.

I think that every president should shut down the government once a year. Every government office should be required to keep only the essential people working (without pay). Then the president should fire all the non-essential workers. Wash, rinse, repeat...

Why bother reopening it at all? Seems wasteful.

+1 This is what is annoying about the shutdowns. Some idiot always comes around and starts it all up again.

Agreed. Let's also eliminate the military which is the most expensive parasite on taxpayer sending the best to defend our borders. We have the 2nd amendment anyway for real national self-defense.

In Australia the senate once threatened to cut off supply and an embodiment of the Queen's power, called the Governor General, sacked the government just to prevent the possibility of that happening.

Would you like to borrow our Governor General for the weekend? He's not very busy.

The most interesting product would be income insurance for government shutdown. Who's the first to offer it?

Tyler is pushing payday loans. But the problem with both of these is they do incur and unnecessary cost on the employee.

Why not a simple rule that the people who have to work get paid, and the furloughed don't have to work?

That would certainly increase pressure on the Democrats to cave.

Someone made an observation yesterday, in line with my own thinking. He said that in Trump's world of business deals are one by one, and then done, and it's only money.

Politics is an iterated game, and theory for that is different than for a one-off.

(In terms of iterated games, it is probably a bad precedent for us voters as well, if any president may get any spending by closing government.)

"if any president may get any spending by closing government.)"

Like when Obama shutdown the government in 2013 over funding for Obamacare?

Hmm. A law passed in 2010 caused a shutdown in 2013?

Or perhaps it was a repeal effort instead?

You stated, that any President getting additional spending above what Congress authorizes by closing government sets a bad precedent.

Congress passed an allocation that would defund much of Obamacare. President Obama demanded that Obamacare be funded. The situations are similar. A rational person would hold the same position regarding both situations.

However, I'm confident you'll attempt to weasel out of your very own statements.

And of course there are the 2 shutdowns of 1995 and 1996:

"The United States federal government shutdowns of 1995 and 1995–96 were the result of conflicts between Democratic President Bill Clinton and the Republican Congress over funding for Medicare, education, the environment, and public health in the 1996 federal budget. The government shut down after Clinton vetoed the spending bill the Republican-controlled Congress sent him."

Clearly by your very own standards you should condemn President Clinton for his repeated shutdowns.

See below.

I didn't get a straight answer:

"it is probably a bad precedent for us voters as well, if any president may get any spending by closing government."

Does this apply to all Presidents? Or just one's you don't like.

Unemployment is available for furloughed workers, although of course it has to be paid back when back pay is received.

I'm frankly baffled at the House's decision to advance a back pay bill while the shutdown is still in progress; it seems like a huge political mistake. Without such a bill, the Democrats could attempt to seek public sympathy for the federal workforce by arguing that they're suffering with no income and no assurance that the mean man in the White House will agree to back pay. Now that it's clear that back pay will be paid, why should the general public pay any attention?

Because House Democrats are getting pressure from Federal workers to guarantee their pay. It works both ways. If you think the "mean man in the White House won't pay" and you're a Federal Worker, you are going to push to end the shutdown quickly.

A $20 gift card at HEB can feed your family for a day (with jalapeno flavoring!)

A $20 gift card at Austin-based Whole Foods buys you a tomato.

That's why Jeff Bezos is the world's richest man and you're not.

But is he happy?

Might be now that he's trading in his old wife for a newer model. Won't be the richest man on earth anymore (still be close), but his ex will be the richest woman.

"Might be now that he's trading in his old wife for a newer model."

Actually no. His wife (48) is a year younger than Lauren Sanchez (49).

Newer as in more recent, not younger. Clearly he's switching horses.

I have no animus against Whole Foods, and like their ranking system for meat, but Central Market, HEB's specialty store, is a thousand times better than Whole Foods.

I wouldn't be surprised if, later on, we realize the "Texas miracle" owed a lot to the existence of the terrific grocery chain HEB. I wish a member of the Butt family would enter politics.

I don't suppose any of the airline CEOs and airport managers considered hiring the screeners as temps, and the air traffic controller as temps. It never occurred to them, and they are socialists at heart.

I noticed Lindsey Graham and the freedom Caucus were crying like babies because their buddies go their government welfare contracts to worry. All conservatives, from Romney to graham are claiming the utiilty of massive socialist government at the moment, and we should remember this, and cut off their funds.

I think we are all learning how a government shutdown works anit is a good thing, we will need lots of them, or the millennials will be broke covering federal interest charges, at over 5% of their income. A lot of do-re-me considering they never once voted for any of the government crud that the freedom Caucus has been buying, with debt.

One point to consider...government employees do not go on strike.

Why do air traffic controllers need to be Government employees at all? In many parts of the world airports are privately owned and the controllers are employees of the airport owners.

I would like more discussion of this. I could maybe hear the arguments that airports would engage in a race to the bottom, but the airline industry has extremely strong incentives against allowing air traffic accidents.

Trump believes we can get federal government for free. In reality, nothing is free. Trumps a bigger socialist than AOC.

I'll shed some crocodile tears for air traffic controllers making an average of $120,000 who cannot manage to save a few dollars to tide themselves over for a bit.

That's how the US economy is designed to work. Saving money for a rainy day or government shut-down would take money out of the consumer economy. However, even what little cash the public employees have will be prioritized for cable tv and internet access and cell phone contracts.

In which the motivation is revealed.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/8/18173678/trump-shutdown-voter-florida

Has it occurred to anyone that Government Employees May have learned their budgeting skills from their employers?

Good thing we elected a leader who has excellent bankruptcy skills.

Depending on the glasses you wear, the shutdown is either proof of how indispensable government is or proof that government needs to have its fingers in way less. It's a sign of the times, I guess.

Me, I'm for cutting off some fingers.

Strange how pilots, who rely on the government for things like air traffic control and reliable weather forecasts, are actually not agreeing with you.

But as noted in the last words comments, the last words of pilots are a well studied area.

So much winning - '... you may even get tired of winning and you'll say please, please Mr. President, It's too much winning! We can't take it anymore!'

I suppose I should chalk it up to a faulty memory or something. However, I have a rather distinct sense that last time we had a shutdown and everyone was talking about the poor unpaid government worker someone pointed out they actually collect their pay after the government restarts. Fake news I am thing of? Don't recall any type of challenge or retraction of the claim. Pretty sure the source was a mainstream media outlet (not Fox) and not merely a blog/FB comment or tweet.

Apparently it is very messy. Some have to work and not get paid for now, some don't have to work or get paid for now. I think most direct federal employees will be paid later. Some, depending on there State rules may qualify for unemployment in the meantime. All of those will have to repay it at some point. But Federal contractors and businesses blocked by closed agencies don't have any of those remedies.

One article yesterday claimed that microbreweries constantly come up with new brews, but they can't sell them right now because they can't register them or something?

Perhaps libertarians would cry "but breweries should not be regulated in the first place!," but that does not help breweries or GDP in the short run.

In the short run this is all disruption and loss of GDP.

There has to be a law passed specifically authorizing back pay. In past shutdowns, that didn't happen until afterward, so there was some uncertainty as to whether it would happen. This time around, such a law has just been signed, so both the feds who are working and all of us who are furloughed are assured of back pay.

Certainly it's de minimis, but as a (furloughed) federal employee, I would not accept a $20 gift card from someone having an interest before my agency.

So, some people like to talk about the shutdown of 2013. Let's be honest about that, and how well it does or does not parallel the current situation.

In 2010 the Democrats controlled the government and passed a very polarizing legislation. But they passed it. In 2012 elections reversed things and Republicans gained some control in government. In 2013 they attempted a repeal of standing law which resulted in a standoff and a shutdown.

Let's be honest here. The parallel would be that the Republicans passed a full border wall funding bill in 2017 or 2018, and then the Democrats in 2019 or 2020 attempted to reverse it.

It is kind of important that the Republicans never really wanted the wall, even when they control the governmen, and that this standoff started when Republicans were *still* in control of government.

This obviously creates a sad trap for Senate Republicans. They never funded a full border wall, but now they are trapped supporting the thing they never supported.

By the way, I think the strongest appeal it would be to democracy, if even though Congress opposed more Americans wanted the wall and Trump was honoring their intention.

But if neither a majority of Congress nor Americans want the wall, not so much.

Comments for this post are closed