Effects of government shutdown on rocket launches (TFR's)?

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
And we have to do to make this all go away forever is to balance the budget. If we fail to do that, eventually the economic catastrophe that results will make a recession look like a good thing.
 
They don’t usually last very long. Shutdowns are unpopular (because they are idiotic), and usually the pressure builds pretty fast to end them. Congressional leadership finds a way to cut the holdouts out of the process and take the blame without getting anything they wanted.
My humorous take on shutdowns is that Congress doesn't want them to last long because they're afraid we'll figure out just how much government we can live without... including most of Congress.
 
I'm in the U.S. but out here on the edge of nowhere, we don't rely on gov'ment for much. We're pretty much self sufficient for most things

Usually the way it affects people in the broader economy is when federal employees don’t get paid, then they stop spending, and business dries up for the places where they usually spend money, so those businesses start cutting back, and it just ripples out from there. As an example, earlier @cwbullet said if he doesn’t receive his paycheck on time, it might affect his ability to hold a launch. That would mean others can’t attend, and vendors can’t make sales.

Another thing that happens is National Parks shut down, people don’t come, so communities that serve park visitors get hit.

Also contractors who do business with the government sometimes don’t get paid on time, or the projects get suspended, delayed, canceled, etc.

Some people do use government services that get cut or delayed, like if you are waiting on a permit, or other government decision.

I read that FEMA is already cutting back on its emergency aid to save money in case there’s no new budget for awhile and something serious happens.

There are a lot of ways it can affect people who don’t expect to be impacted. I don’t know if that would affect you out there on The Edge of Nowhere, but it might affect a lot of people not so close to The Edge.
 
There should be a way forward by then.
Knowing that I have a launch scheduled for October 14th, and following the example of another poster, I asked Salt Lake ATC to activate my COA and obtain a TFR. “Absolutely” was their nearly immediate response.
I got the same response from my BLM contact.
 
Knowing that I have a launch scheduled for October 14th, and following the example of another poster, I asked Salt Lake ATC to activate my COA and obtain a TFR. “Absolutely” was their nearly immediate response.
I got the same response from my BLM contact.

Smart move!
 
Now it’s pretty much guaranteed we are going to have at least a short shutdown. It’s too late to move a continuing resolution at this point. It would take a miracle to do what’s required to prevent it.
 
It will effect slightly but my wife makes considerably more than me (I'm gov and "essential"), I feel for my staff - some of whom are single mothers or the only bread winner. It will hurt them if it goes on too long. Meanwhile the dysfunctional members of some party hold America hostage...
 
It will effect slightly but my wife makes considerably more than me (I'm gov and "essential"), I feel for my staff - some of whom are single mothers or the only bread winner. It will hurt them if it goes on too long. Meanwhile the dysfunctional members of some party hold America hostage...
The bill failed today on a bipartisan basis. 21 Republicans voted against the bill while 211 Democrats voted against it.
 
I'm of the opinion that there should be real consequences for congresspersons (of both parties) when a shutdown happens. Financial or having to do with ability to run again. If they prove their unfitness for the role, they shouldn't come away scott free when people suffer.
 
I'm of the opinion that there should be real consequences for congresspersons (of both parties) when a shutdown happens. Financial or having to do with ability to run again. If they prove their unfitness for the role, they shouldn't come away scott free when people suffer.
It’s up to the voters to hold elected officials accountable. Want them to suffer financially, then vote them out. We get the government that we put in office and that’s regardless of one’s party affiliation/persuasion.
 
1 party holds America hostage while the other allows it. 535 people in Washington need new jobs.
I think it is time for term limits, a balanced budget amendment, and a new law. The law is that Congress does not get paid for any days after 1 OCT that the country is without a budget. No back pay - you work for free will the budget is signed into law. I guess another option is that all of Congress is fired on 1 OCT if they do not deliver a budget. I am required to do certain things annually, if I do not deliver, I will get demoted or fired.
 
There is a proposed law being kicked around by a bipartisan group that I think would be a good idea. It would basically take shutdowns off the table as a bargaining chip. If Congress is unable to pass a spending bill, then the proposed law would automatically extend spending at current levels for 2-week increments until a new spending bill passed. In other words, automatic ”continuing resolutions”.

But I also agree on the idea of some kind of penalty for failing to pass budgets on time. Loss of pay, mandatory fines, or something.
 
There are two things going on here.

First, Congress already passed the budget. A long time ago.

Second, the present showdown is (a minority of) Congress refusing to authorize the Treasury department to issue new debt to pay for the budget.

Home finance analogy: I wrote a check months ago. Now I'm refusing to honor it.

I like the idea of automatic renewals for debt authorization. I also like the idea of putting all the no voters in jail for check kiting, fraud.
 
The bill failed today on a bipartisan basis. 21 Republicans voted against the bill while 211 Democrats voted against it.

That kind of implies that the No votes are in alignment, but they are not. They voted No for completely opposite reasons. The 211 Democrats voted No because the bill is not even close to what Republicans and Democrats agreed to in May. The 21 Republicans voted No because they want even bigger cuts than the bill contains. Those are very different reasons.

The Yes votes were for a bill that doesn’t honor the deal struck in May, but it’s something that McCarthy and Republican House Leadership thought maybe might cut enough from the May deal to satisfy the Freedom caucus. It did not, so the Freedom Caucus voted it down.

Basically the disagreement at this point is between House GOP leadership and the Freedom Caucus. If they could come to an agreement, then they could pass the bill out of the House, and then we would move to the NEXT disagreement, which will be between the House and Senate.
 
There are two things going on here.

First, Congress already passed the budget. A long time ago.

Second, the present showdown is (a minority of) Congress refusing to authorize the Treasury department to issue new debt to pay for the budget.

Home finance analogy: I wrote a check months ago. Now I'm refusing to honor it.

I like the idea of automatic renewals for debt authorization. I also like the idea of putting all the no voters in jail for check kiting, fraud.

That’s not the case this time. What you are describing is a debt ceiling standoff, like what happened in May. This one is about spending levels and appropriations.
 
Back
Top