More Hereos! Hooah!

More Heroes!
New wave of WWII veterans move barricades to access DC memorial | Fox News

 

Why would a monument be closed other than to make a statement? I could see no elevator rides to the top of the Washington Monument or similar attraction that requires personnel to operate, but why do you need people to work the Vietnam Wall, Lincoln/Korea/WWII Memorial, etc.?

 

The problem with leaving these things open--even though they're quite static--is litter. Some people are slobs and litter carelessly. But there's no one to clean up, and in a very short time such memorials will look disgraceful--disrespecting the very people they honor. And the government is going to be closed for more than just a few days, I'm afraid.

 

There are probably also security reasons larger than litter why not to, with skeleton staffs and big chunks of support infrastructure closed down, open some of these sites to the general public and hope for the best. We've all heard of the reprehensible group that goes around demonstrating at military funerals and other memorials, for instance; I'm sure they're watching.

There probably was a reasonable case to close the monuments. Maybe it wasn't the best of two options, but it doesn't seem unreasonable on its face.

 

I was being a little tongue and cheek with my earlier comments. I have been to all of the monuments numerous times and have observed a very limited NPS presence. I understand the housekeeping and security aspects, although law enforcement in the region is deemed as essential and is a still funded entity. Here is an idea - 800K+ federal employees were furloughed. When the gov. resumes these people will get full back pay for the duration of the shutdown at the cost of 3.2 million hours of lost productivity per week of shutdown (800K x 40). A couple of hours with a sack and a stick with a nail in the end for each would do wonders for the litter problem created by keeping the monuments open while offsetting some of the lost productivity. Comments made in jest - sort of.

 

I'm glad it's in jest, because it would solve nothing.

First, there's no assurance that federal employees will be given back pay. I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't happen.

Second, the productivity loss would still exist because they wouldn't be doing the jobs they're trained (and paid) for. Are you going to have a GS-15 getting nearly $160K per year picking up litter? Really?

Third, the downtime is damaging to the mission. Anything that would delay its conclusion would just continue the damage and actually make it worse.

Finally, being kept away from what one does as a career isn't fair to that person. This suggestion would make that worse.

Again, glad it's in jest.

 

As of right now those federal employees that are furloughed will NOT be getting any back pay. Just like the 6 days we were furloughed this summer. There was no back pay then and probably will not be now either. Of course this may change, but as of right now federal workers are seen as worhtless sponge's who make way too much many and have incredible benefits so it might be a tough sell to get those 800K any sort of back pay compensation.

 

As I noted, my comments were in jest. Once again Rich, you have managed to suck all of the fun out of the room in your never-ending quest to appear smarter than everyone else. It is the Internet, take it down a notch.

 

This needs to be emphasized.

Currently, there is no provision to provide back pay. A bill containing such a provision would have to be passed.

I agree that times have changed. I also acknowledge that some federal employees were furloughed in a cost-savings measure. But this isn't that. This shut-down is political only, and has nothing to do with cutting spending. (The Democrats have already agreed to continue funding the government at the sequester level. The Republicans aren't proposing more cuts, just hating on stuff they don't like.)

I think it's safe to say the Democrats will want to provide back pay. I think it will come down to whether or not the Republicans can be shamed into it. Hard to do for the shameless. (Like shutting down the government for reasons having nothing to do with funding the government.)

 

Aww, isn't that sweet. An ad hominem without any invitation. I will refrain from returning in kind. Thank you for your comment.

 

I hope we don't default on our debts. The impact could be terrifying.

I personally believe the President has the authority to continue paying our debts even if Congress doesn't raise the debt limit. And he just might, without any platinum coins.

 

Because, I think, to do so--even if little ol' me thinks he can do it--will cause a Constitutional battle he doesn't want. The debt ceiling is a silly thing and I don't think Obama wants to own it.

 

People's Exhibit A.

 

Again, thank you.

Hopefully, we can return to the subject of the thread.

 

Personally, I think that Congress ought to be laid off.

 

I'm the opposite. I'd like to see a unicameral, parliamentary system with a prime minister and majority rule. Currently, one side of the equation is way over-represented compared to the will of the people and is conveniently entrenched, empowered like no minority party should ever be.