The NYT trips over its own dick and proves a point other than the one they intended (the link is to Walsh’s evisceration and not the NYT, of course).
To be sure, the furloughed public servants are merely suffering delayed paychecks thanks to the Democrats’ refusal to accept the results of the 2016 election, and while the public has not been as deliberately inconvenienced as it was during the dog-in-the-manger Obama shutdown, its effects are nevertheless being felt at such points of intersection as the national parks. Still, life has gone on otherwise pretty much as before — and the longer the shutdown rolls on, the more easily the way we were can be forgotten.
So the longer Donald Trump wrangles with his two superannuated cartoon antagonists, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, the stronger the president’s position becomes. This despite the Democrat Media’s insistence that the shutdown is a terrible thing, costing the lives of (as usual) untold women, children, and minorities. Indeed, the New York Times, in an attempt to be helpful, even went so far as to illustrate “What the Shutdown Would Look Like if It Happened in Other Industries.”
The 800,000 federal employees furloughed or working without pay is more than the 748,000 people employed by the mining and oil extraction industries in the United States. (And it’s 16 times the size of the entire coal mining industry.) It’s also more than the 640,000 people employed by the entire textiles and clothing manufacturing industry. It’s more than double the number of people who work for Target and more than four times the number of people who work at General Motors.
The Treasury department furloughed roughly 72,400 workers. That is nearly three times the number of people who work at Facebook. The Department of the Interior furloughed about 56,000 employees, which is more than the nearly 50,000 people who work at Chevron worldwide … and more than 10 times the number of people who work at Netflix.
Take a moment to soak all that up: the number of FedGovCo’s NONESSENTIAL employees exceeds those employed by entire fucking industries in the private sector? By as much as SIXTEEN TIMES their number? Walsh spells it out:
One would think that these numbers only serve to prove how unconscionably large the federal government has become, but of course that’s not the way the Democrats and their fellow travelers near Times Square see it.
I repeat: SIXTEEN TIMES. NONESSENTIAL “workers.” That’s SIXTEEN TIMES as many useless paper-pushers, thumb-twiddlers, rumpswabs, and pud-pullers as are employed in the coal mining industry, all of whom do actually, quantifiably useful, important, work. A lot of those jobs put the guys doing ’em (and yes, they’re overwhelmingly male) in danger of serious physical harm. Those people nonchalantly shoulder a burden of risk every minute of every workday that is wholly beyond the comprehension of mouthbreathing federal-gummint drones whose gravest worry is a paper-cut, having their chair tip over while napping, or hurt feelings when someone reads an op-ed belittling them aloud in the office. All in all, I have to say that, the diligent efforts of the liberal media to drum up sympathy notwithstanding, my nightly weeping over the plight of these goobermint parasites is…shall we say, a bit short of copious.
Most Americans regard “idle” and “bureaucrat” as synonyms. For those of us who have spent our lives toiling in the private sector, where employees are expected to produce things, “nonessential worker” is a concept that has no meaning. In the real world beyond the Beltway, businesses hire people because they have some “essential” task that must be performed. Thus, we aren’t often moved to tears when told “nonessential workers” will be sent home because of a government shutdown, Yet major news outlets actually expect us to be swayed by stories like this from the Wall Street Journal:
Rusty Long is debating which bills to pay and which to hold off on, as he plans to miss his first paycheck on Friday, along with hundreds of thousands of other federal employees … “We’re not going out to eat, we’re cooking every meal at home, and there were conversations about what could we stop if we needed to and what could I do to bring in additional income,” he said.
I’m sure Rusty and his family are fine folks, but he’s an architect who works for the Agriculture Department. I have no idea why that bloated bureaucracy needs architects, but I’m willing to bet he could find a job outside the government. So, the first question that occurred to me when I read this story is: Why is money being removed from my paycheck and given to such people in the first place? And, as human tragedies go, that the Longs are forced to manage their budget carefully and are unable to eat out often isn’t very impressive.
OK, call me callous, but this isn’t exactly Les Misérables. It’s a pain in the posterior to miss paychecks — but most furloughed bureaucrats will get their back pay when the Democrats figure out the shutdown is a loser and compromise. So, unless these folks have been really irresponsible with their personal finances, it’s not like our nation’s capital is going to wind up like Speaker Pelosi’s district in San Francisco.
Once again, for good measure: NONESSENTIAL. Here are some synoyms for that word straight from the Merriam-Webster thesaurus:
dispensable, gratuitous, inessential, needless, uncalled-for, unessential, unnecessary, unwarranted
Not a ONE of those words ought to be applicable to anyone who is paid with taxpayer dollars. In the private sector—which must actually produce or provide something useful or desirable and make a profit doing it—if any of those words apply to you, you won’t have a job for long. If they apply to your employer, or if that employer keeps enough people to whom they apply on its payroll, it will soon be out of business.
So how on earth can anyone justify exempting government from that reasonable, common-sense standard? What is the reasoning behind allowing the money taxpayers sweat for to be squandered on useless dead weight and tail-chasing bureaucracy? It ain’t like we’re talking chump change here either; the “omnibus spending agreement” reached back in March of last year was 1.3 trillion dollars.
Help me out here, folks; I’m trying to make sense out of this ziggurat of stinking, steaming crap, but I’m coming up way short. Maybe I’m just too dang igner’nt to get any kind of handle on high-level economics, I dunno. But what I wonder most about is how this was ever allowed to happen in the first damned place.