My impression is the system doesn't have all that much slack to begin with. And then to reduce all the major airports at the same time? And with the (current) expectation that next week will be worse?
Edit: this feels ripe for a simulator type of game. Assume X% of ATC walk off the job every week because they have to pay their bills and can't work ATC for free any longer. Assume Y% of TSA do likewise. Assume FAA increases acceptable fatality risk by Z% weekly. Give little sliders for X, Y, Z. See what conditions are required to let us make it to December 1.
More edit: It would be cool to compare this to natural shutdowns. For example, how does a 10% reduction overall affect traffic as compared to a given Nor'easter or hurricane or bomb cyclone?
More edit: give FAA the power to e.g. shut down airports and rapidly move & re-certify ATC on other airports, like regional triage. Maybe shut down Hobby and Austin and put everyone at IAH. Move to sectors, so there's a single airport operating in Texas and surrounding states, ATL in the southeast, etc. Game out how far in advance FAA needs to make all those calls in order to minimize fatalities. Game out what is the date after which air travel becomes less safe than driving. This could be like Railroad Tycoon, except from the regulator's perspective.
For example, assume ATC is still not being paid around Thanksgiving week. How many ATC are still coming to work, for free, with no assurance of receiving back pay, on a holiday week, with a second rent/mortgage payment due in a week? Planning around that seems much harder even than planning around a storm!
Assuming the airline survives.
At this point I'd be more concerned about safety than secondary effects so I think they are making the right call. At the same time the economic impact will be massive.
But yes, this is bullshit. We also should not have active duty military using soup kitchens abroad. But on these matters, my opinion is obviously different from that of most voters. Hopefully, voters will change their minds.
Gonna be rough if the shutdown lasts to the end of November. Shame the usual suspects didn't get the memo about how badly their party was just decimated across the country. Should've been a canary in the coal mine moment
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VTD96WhhC9w&list=RDVTD96WhhC9w...
Publix holiday commercials were something else
Problem is, I live in Utah. The daily California Zephyr pulls into Salt Lake Central at 3AM, way after all the connecting public transit has shut down for the night. So just getting to the train will probably involve a night Uber at what I assume is extraordinary expense. Not to mention it's in the run-down industrialized car park part of downtown, not the nice part with the mall and LDS temple.
Additionally, Utah's class 1 railway is Union Pacific, a dogshit hedge fund running a decrepit railroad that clogs up downtown with shittons of long, slow freight trains[0]. Which means the California Zephyr is one of the most frequently delayed Amtrak services, even with Amtrak levels of padding. So that 3AM train could easily wind up being delayed several hours, and any connections through Chicago are almost certain to get missed. Not to mention it's a three day ride, which is a lot of time to spend on a train without access to a shower[1].
So Amtrak here is the worst combination of inconvenient and slow. I've heard the scenery on the Zephyr is absolutely amazing, though.
I ultimately wound up booking SLC - JFK and a connecting Amtrak from Penn Station to Pittsburgh, which turns out to be about the same time as SLC - JFK - PIT by air. In fact, the air layover is so long JetBlue won't sell you a connecting ticket.
However, I'm now afraid that itinerary is going to get wrecked by this stupid government shutdown, and if that happens I'm pretty sure I'm just out the money for both the plane, train, and hotel.
With infrastructure like this, why would anyone want to vacation in this awful country?
[0] To the point where pedestrians often ignore grade crossing warnings, expecting a slow freight train they can outrun, only to be turned into a fine red mist by a FrontRunner train going 80mph.
Also, if you're reading this and live in Utah, please tell your local representatives to support the Rio Grande Plan: https://riograndeplansaltlakecity.org/
[1] Please correct me if it turns out there are public showers for coach passengers.
Slavery never went away, it just shifted.
But at least the Republican goverment is doing something positive to curve climate change. If they shut down enough of the economy and people cannot afford gas anymore that will produce less CO2. Win?
For example, as a prospective employee, if I knew that I was the only qualified candidate the employer had interviewed, and they really needed someone within a week, I'd know that I can ask for more salary. If I instead take the middle of the salary range, just because it's maximally acceptable to both parties, I'd be missing out
This is a gentle fiction. The GOP has the 51 votes to change this rule by lunchtime tomorrow and proceed to govern according to the mandate they claim. They may choose not to do that, as is their prerogative.
But they do not "need" 60 votes according to the Constitution, which is free online to read. One can even search for a 60-vote cloture requirement in the document and its amendments, which are in fact the real governing documents that describe how Congress is required to operate.
You're correct, of course, but they're doing something that's exceedingly rare these days: they're thinking about the ramifications for when the shoe is on the other foot.
Which is kinda dumb, because Democrats have shown time and again that they're willing to throw the rulebook out when it suits them (but they'll cry crocodile tears when it's done to them).
It's all moot anyway; now that the election is over, and they don't need to leverage their constituents well-being for votes, Democrats have indicated a willingness to pass the bill.
Notably, not for healthcare! (Older person's perspective: the pseudo-requirement for 60 votes is quite possibly why the US didn't get universal healthcare in 2010.)
Anyway, yes it is good if parties who win at the ballot box are able to enact their policies into law. The filibuster prevents this and as such is a cancer on representative government.
The GOP should be able to install armed checkpoints on every city block and eliminate the ACA, returning us to the status quo of 2009[1]. They won the most recent election, that is their prerogative. They should be bound by existing law, but beyond that there should be few checks on them realizing their wish list.
By the same token, when Democrats win, they should be able to offer a Medicare For All and universal preschool[2].
Parties that win should be able to enact their policies. Let the voters decide which policies they prefer. Which brings me back to
> they're thinking about the ramifications for when the shoe is on the other foot.
If they have conviction that their constituents will like their policies, they needn't worry. They should actively want to be able to enact their policies, so that voters can choose them again to get more of the same. What leader of conviction would intentionally neuter their own capabilities?
1 - taken loosely from current enactment of policy and https://prod-static.gop.com/media/RNC2024-Platform.pdf?_gl=1...
2 - taken loosely from https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/2024-Democr...
Democrats have shown time and again that they're willing to throw the rulebook out when it suits them
The budget filibuster has been a weird rule for a while that has really just relied on the honor system that the majority party will throw a small bone to the minority to pass the budget. It was only a matter of time until people figured out it doesn't have to be a small bone.
Democrats risk drawing the wrong lessons from one good day
Although if that metaphor is too rough I suppose we can also go with the inmates running the asylum
Amazingly, Republicans were also blamed when the sides were reversed.
If you're determined to blame someone, it is always possible to find a way to phrase things so it's their fault.
They do think that, but it's an incredibly stupid way to think about the US government. The president isn't a dictator.
Past presidents understood assuming ultimate responsibility is in the job description, and voters understand it as well. Maybe you think it's incredibly stupid, but I think it's a hallmark of a great leader to assume ultimate responsibility, especially when negative outcomes are not in his control. Conversely, I think weak, feckless leaders pass the buck to subordinates and/or opponents.
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/trump-cal...
The Republican party plans to never leave power again, but they're not actually confident they can pull it off. If they were, the filibuster would be gone already.
Last night's election was a good example of why that scares them.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5588295-spending-bill-go...
I've never been a Republican but the line of argument you are pursuing is gross no matter who does it. Have some self-respect.
Your ignorance of how Federal politics works is not my problem. Plenty of other ways you could learn if you were actually interested.
The debate is which one is more righteous: the one keeping it shut to prevent millions from having healthcare in sacrifice to the rich, or the side keeping it shut to fight for healthcare affordability for 15.million people and keeping rural hospitals open?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/G1m9mWg3xYk
The republicans have control of every major branch of government and it's still somehow the Dems fault.
There are moderates in one party and project 2025 extremists in another
The founders knew this divide would exist, because the same basic divide was there 200+ years ago (different parties and party names, but the same rural/urban political divide). They purposely chose to design the electoral college system in a way that gave rural regions a significant say in political outcomes even when their population densities are much lower than those of cities. They also purposely placed seats of government away from major cities, for much the same reasons.
The country may be more polarized today, but the color pattern on the map is not new.
Meanwhile, the reason for the electoral allocation reflects one of the most fundamental compromises in the design of the federal system: is the national government be representative of the people, or is it representative of the states? The answer is it's both--that's why there's one house for the people and one house for the states (the Senate). And the number of electors for the president is similarly a compromise, giving one vote for each member of both houses. (Again, recall that senators were not elected by popular vote until the 20th century).
There was no concept of a rural/urban political divide, because urbanization really wasn't a thing in 1787. The overarching concern of the people who wrote the Constitution was balancing the powers of a state like Virginia versus Rhode Island--the small state/large state divide is the major focal point of discussion--although there was also a contentious issue over the role of slavery (of course, in 1787, most states were slave states--only Massachusetts had fully abolished slavery by that point, although the rest of New England had just adopted a gradual abolition program) which yields the ⅗ compromise.
It’s wild how different the numbers were.
NYC's postal names are a mess: Manhattanites can write "Manhattan" or "New York". Brooklynites are supposed to write "Brooklyn." Queens denizens write the historic names of the farm towns that used to be there. "Astoria" is actually part of New York City, even though seeing a letter addressed there might make you think it's a town upstate.
The postal service is older than the current boundaries of New York, and they never updated the mail routing to reflect the unified city.
Before the bridges were built, much of what's now NYC was very rural.
There is clear, documented evidence that slavery and the three fifths compromise are directly related to the creation of the electoral college: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/elec...
This is a myth. The electoral college as originally conceived simply granted a elector count[1] to the states and let them decide how to allocate them. It had nothing to do with urban/rural divide, which barely existed at all outside of the three (!) states that actually had cities of meaningful size.
The interpretation you're proposing is decidedly modern. It's a retcon intended to justify the fact that "red" states in the modern electorate are clearly wielding outsized influence. But even that has only been true for 2-3 decades.
[1] What asymmetry existed was actually because of the way senate seats are allocated. Its effect on presidential elections was essentially an accident.
Seats of government necessarily become cities. You don’t create a new city to keep power away from cities. State governments tended to be put in central locations for the convenience of all urban and rural dwellers, and away from existing power centers to avoid concentrating power with the wealthy.
The electoral college demands proportional representation in presidential elections. It says nothing about whether the electors are rural or urban dwellers. In fact, proportional representation weakens the power of less populous states.
The original unicameral continental congress with only a senate gave more power to less populous states, but the founding fathers found it effectively gave any single state veto power, which was counterproductive, and hence the great compromise was passed creating the House.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_busiest_airports_i...
Official announcement tomorrow.
(reuters.com) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45828203
What other country has such a stupid procedure?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_of_supply
Usually it is interpreted as a loss of confidence in the government, resulting in the formation of a new government or the calling of an election. Potential loss of power is a pretty good incentive for a government to find a sensible solution.
Because much of what the US government does, including paying most of its employees, is funded by annual appropriations, which are only valid for one particular fiscal year. As soon as that fiscal year ends and a new one starts, if new annual appropriations haven't been passed for the new fiscal year (or something else that provides funds, like a Continuing Resolution), all those things have to stop because there's no money to fund them any more.
There's no Constitutional requirement for all those things to be funded by annual appropriations; the only restriction the Constitution imposes is that no appropriation "to raise and support Armies" shall be for more than two years. It's just how the budgeting process has evolved.
> If there’s no agreement just use what was already law before
That won't work quite as you state it because "what was already law before" expired at the end of the last fiscal year.
A Continuing Resolution is an attempt to extend "what was already law before" for some period into the new fiscal year (in the case of the one passed by the House in September that was until November 21). But it still has to be passed as a law--it doesn't just happen automatically. Congress could put something in place to do that (since there's no Constitutional bar to that--see above), but they never have.
The is the politicians not being able to form a coalition. Imagine your congress not agreeing to fill some commissions or confirm some positions in government.
It is a 'shutdown' of the legislative branch, not the executive.
I timed my time from plane door to train in Taiwan: 24 minutes. To be fair I was hustling and had no checked bag. Automated immigration gate, walk through customs without being stopped, straight to the train. The train comes every 10-15 minutes so I also got lucky boarding right before the doors closed. My time from plane to home was about an hour and a half.