Why is the main harm of a long shutdown the pay of the workers and not the actual work?Conservative Review, Jan 14, 2019, David Horowitz
[...]
On Friday, with almost no debate, House Democrats brought a bill to the floor, S. 24, that would permanently guarantee automatic back pay for federal employees, even the ones that were furloughed, in the event of a shutdown. Traditionally, Congress has always voted to pay back federal workers after a particular shutdown, given the radioactive nature of the politics behind it. But this bill is different. If it were to become law, it would essentially take all federal employees’ salaries, which are currently discretionary and subject to the appropriations process, and make them mandatory spending. Thus, irrespective of whether Congress passes appropriations bills, all federal employees – whether essential or not – would be guaranteed pay for not working during an appropriation lapse.
The amazing thing is that only seven Republicans had the courage to fight through the demagoguery and vote against this bill.
[...]
Sadly, the political class is learning the exact opposite lesson they should from this stealth shutdown. Obviously, there are some important agencies, such as ICE, Border Patrol, and the Coast Guard, that are subject to this lapse in appropriations and are seeing their pay delayed. We should always ensure that the essential workers are paid. But because they are essential, they are still working. What about the 95.4 percent of HUD employees, 86 percent of Commerce, 83.3 percent of Treasury, 66.5 percent of Agriculture, and 76 percent of Interior, employees who are not working because they are deemed unessential? Education and Labor are already funded this time, but if they were subject to the shutdown, 95 percent and 81 percent of their respective employees would be deemed nonessential.
One can make a case that some nonessential workers are necessary in the long run and are just not indispensable at the moment. That is certainly the case at Justice and Homeland Security, where roughly 85 percent of employees are deemed essential, so naturally you will need a certain number of nonessential, yet necessary, employees to support their work. But if such a high percentage of a department is deemed nonessential, shouldn’t we have a discussion on whether those positions should exist or whether states, which actually have to balance their budgets, should take up the slack?
More:
https://www.conservativereview.com/news/why-is-the-main-harm-of-a-long-shutdown-the-pay-of-the-workers-and-not-the-actual-work/
