[HN Gopher] US gov shutdown leaves IT projects hanging, security...
___________________________________________________________________
US gov shutdown leaves IT projects hanging, security defenders a
skeleton crew
Author : rntn
Score : 54 points
Date : 2025-10-01 21:40 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theregister.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theregister.com)
| Veliladon wrote:
| What could possibly go wrong?
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| I didn't have "One of the larger global nuclear powers elects
| the dumbest man alive as president" as a Great Filter in my
| paper back in college, but it increasingly feels like a
| distinct possibility.
| chris_wot wrote:
| The U.S. will never recover from this. Why? Because when
| foreign nations decide whether to do a deal with the U.S.
| they will do it with only a maxmimum of 4 year timeframes in
| mind. Because any deal you do with a sane administration
| could quite possibly be ended by the American people electing
| someone who is batshit insane, and who is backed by a bunch
| of cronies, sycophants and morons.
| cosmicgadget wrote:
| Six years is a better bet, due to some legislature terms
| and the fact that a president will be in office for eight
| years unless they do something really stupid.
|
| But considering the counterparties can be countries like
| South Korea, Italy, the Philippines, Argentina, and Brazil,
| it's not like disruption isn't already baked in.
| jedberg wrote:
| >? the fact that a president will be in office for eight
| years unless they do something really stupid.
|
| The last two terms (and this one assuming the law is
| actually followed) will all be 4 years.
|
| Going back to the beginning, only 34% of the terms have
| been 8 years or more.
| asdff wrote:
| It isn't like foreign nations are immune to this either.
| Look at places like Hungary.
| OkayPhysicist wrote:
| Hungary isn't trying desperately to hold onto "single
| most powerful country in the world" status. The US being
| as relevant as Hungary is one of the most extreme
| scenarios of "The end of Pax Americana".
| monkeydreams wrote:
| I suppose a shutdown is an effective way to avoid being forced to
| release documents relating to potential links to pedophile
| businessmen.
| MangoToupe wrote:
| I'm all in favor for releasing them, but do people really think
| this document will change much? Distraction, projection, and
| denial are so effective it's not clear what impact people would
| imagine it has.
|
| If you frequent conservative forums you'll notice people are
| more committed to the fascist project than they are to Trump.
| He may in the end be disposable to them.
| maplethorpe wrote:
| > I'm all in favor for releasing them, but do people really
| think this document will change much?
|
| The government seems to fear that it would.
| jennyholzer wrote:
| With this in mind, I have to assume that they were killing
| children on Epstein's island.
| HumblyTossed wrote:
| Nah that was in Romania.
|
| It's all linked together though.
| kemayo wrote:
| He seems to be the glue that's holding together the current
| coalition. The fascist project set is absolutely there, but
| they've never really won over the MAGA crowd who flocked to
| Trump's rallies. It's certainly possible that someone will
| manage to hold them together post-Trump, but nobody in
| conservative leadership right now seems to have his charisma
| and ability to draw those people in. (I absolutely believe
| that Vance _thinks_ he can do it, but I am extremely
| skeptical.)
|
| Which does make it challenging for them, since Trump's an
| elderly man who doesn't look to be in particularly good
| health.
| jennyholzer wrote:
| It's hard for me to imagine anyone who didn't already rise
| to prominence in the mass media environment of yesteryear
| to engage voters in the way Trump has.
|
| In other words, I think Trump was able to succeed
| politically because he was "the guy from TV".
|
| I don't think the current media environment is making more
| "guys from TV" (at least not with anywhere close to the
| status they had ~25 years ago).
| jennyholzer wrote:
| Trump is the glue.
| add-sub-mul-div wrote:
| Each side thinks the other is the useful idiot. That's
| hilarious.
| HumblyTossed wrote:
| Trump is being used as the scapegoat mechanism. They're using
| him to push and shove the bad stuff so that when he's
| expelled everyone feels like it's over but nothing really has
| been reverted. Thiel is definitely part of this. As is his
| bought and paid for minion Vance.
| gruez wrote:
| This doesn't make any sense. If they didn't release it with the
| federal government running they certainly don't need to shut
| the federal government down to avoid releasing it.
| georgemcbay wrote:
| At least one Republican Senator has made the plan to stop
| attacking pedophiles explicit:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/shorts/TulTH6psCsw
|
| I mean, yeah he probably flubbed his words, but let's also be
| honest in that most likely what happened was he was going to
| performantly proclaim "Let's stop protecting the pedophiles"
| realized mid-thought that that would effectively equate to
| saying "Release the Epstein files" putting him at odds with
| Dear Leader and at that point rafael_ed_cruz_brain.exe crashed
| and dumped core containing the shocking statement he ended up
| saying.
|
| I don't know what else would make sense given that he didn't
| immediately correct himself, which is what one would expect if
| it were just a traditional brain fart.
| gruez wrote:
| >At least one Republican Senator has made the plan to stop
| attacking pedophiles explicit:
|
| >I mean, yeah he probably flubbed his words, but let's also
| be honest in that most likely what happened was [...]
|
| So not explicit?
| chris_wot wrote:
| Shutdowns make DOGE redundant. Excellent work!
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| Historically (it might have even been codified in law after the
| last shutdown?), furloughed and non-furloughed workers receive
| back pay after the shutdown ends. It's really the worst of both
| worlds
| Jtsummers wrote:
| Guaranteed backpay was codified in 2019. It makes the
| shutdown pointless. We're paying everyone regardless of
| whether they work through the shutdown or not, but not
| getting the benefit of their work.
| spike021 wrote:
| Except many people's livelihoods rely on being paid on
| time, which is not happening in this case.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| USAA and other banks offer 0% loans up to the salary,
| which helps.
|
| But yes, a lack of pay is incredibly disruptive for the
| furloughed individuals and those like law enforcement
| officers (who Republicans claim to support...) who are
| required to work without pay for the duration.
| miltonlost wrote:
| DOGE and shutdowns also, in the end, cost tax payers more money
| because of what needs to be fixed after the destruction is over
| and we need to rebuild obviously important governmental
| services. To be a conservative in 2025 (or the last 40 years
| since Reagan blew up deficits via tax cuts) is to be fiscally
| irresponsible while hypocritically decrying their own mess.
| https://www.npr.org/2025/10/01/nx-s1-5558298/doge-fiscal-yea...
| fzeroracer wrote:
| I don't see a good off-ramp for the current shutdown, so I think
| this is going to be a very turbulent couple of weeks (months?)
| ahead. Republicans have the majority and can't even whip together
| enough votes for a funding resolution, and Democrats don't want
| to negotiate because all the Republicans have been doing is
| threatening them and asking for things that are obvious no-gos.
| And the moment the shutdown triggered, they've started targeting
| blue states to tear away more funding arbitrarily so that just
| ensures people rightfully dig in further.
|
| Guess we'll see how long they keep the hand on an increasingly
| hot stove.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| > Republicans have the majority and can't even whip together
| enough votes for a funding resolution
|
| Republicans would have to change the Senate rules which
| currently require 60 votes, they only have 53 seats. If they
| changed the rules, it would have passed without the Democrats
| who voted yes to it yesterday.
|
| Yesterday's vote was 55-45, with 60 needed. Two Democrats and
| one independent voted for it, with one Republican voting
| against. Without those three, it was still 52-48. A change to a
| simple majority vote would have averted the shutdown.
|
| https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1...
| fzeroracer wrote:
| They can always involve the nuclear option and kill the
| filibuster easily. As they have done before in other
| circumstances. They won't, because they believe the optics of
| the shutdown is in their favor.
| throwup238 wrote:
| _> Republicans would have to change the Senate rules which
| currently require 60 votes_
|
| That's not quite correct. Senate rules are set by simple
| majority, but the the proposed rule change itself _can_ be
| filibustered mid-term, except for when someone can exploit
| procedural rules of cloture to squash it.
|
| Those rules were exploited in 2013 to remove the judicial
| filibuster and again in 2019 for the Supreme Court. It's
| called the "nuclear option" for a reason, but the road is
| already paved.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| You've written this twice now and I tried to reply the
| first time, but you deleted it. That statement is
| ambiguous, but my "require 60 votes" was meant for the
| funding bill, as evidenced by my other comments which
| mention only needing a simple majority to change the rules.
| miltonlost wrote:
| > Democrats don't want to negotiate because all the Republicans
| have been doing is threatening them and asking for things that
| are obvious no-gos.
|
| Also probably because Republicans never negotiate in good
| faith. What is there to negotiate with when you're being called
| "the enemy from within"?
| TheCowboy wrote:
| Right, we're now in reality where the Senate is passing
| rescissions with a simple majority in addition to the
| President now doing "pocket rescissions". How do you
| negotiate in good faith about budget details if anything
| negotiated can be undone on a whim?
| senderista wrote:
| The elephant in the room is the arbitrary impoundments and
| rescissions that have occurred under this administration. You
| can't negotiate with someone who has just ignored previous
| appropriations bills.
| FinnKuhn wrote:
| Republicans don't need to negotiate with Democrats. They have a
| majority and could end the shutdown all on their own if they
| wanted to.
| yalogin wrote:
| I haven't been following this mess but if the republicans have
| the majority in every house, why are they not agent preventing
| it? And why are they blaming the democrats for it?
| Jtsummers wrote:
| I said it in another comment and it's in many reports, but per
| Senate rules they need a 3/5th majority (60 votes) to pass the
| funding bill. One Republican voted against, two Democrats and
| one Independent for. That brought it to 55-45. The Republicans
| absolutely could change the rules, and don't require that same
| supermajority to do so, so this is squarely on them.
|
| The same thing happened in 2018 when the previous shutdown
| happened, also with Trump in the White House and a Republican
| majority in both houses. The Senate Republicans lacked a
| supermajority and did not change the rules, and the government
| shutdown for 35 days.
| godelski wrote:
| > The Republicans absolutely could change the rules, and
| don't require that same supermajority to do so, so this is
| squarely on them.
|
| Fuck that. Seriously. It isn't even a good idea for
| Republicans to do this. The point of a 3/5th majority is to
| enforce compromising. That thing that is essential to a
| democracy.
|
| Remember, changing the rules means all future rulers can play
| by those rules. The extensions of these types of powers is
| exactly the type of thing that leads to Turnkey Tyranny.
| umanwizard wrote:
| > That thing that is essential to a democracy.
|
| The US is the only democracy in the world that has this
| feature or anything like it.
| Marsymars wrote:
| Switzerland has a feature _like_ it, in that a
| supermajority is required to pass a non-balanced budget.
| In practice, their budgets are all balanced. See their
| "debt brake".
| Jtsummers wrote:
| The US will never have a balanced budget with the two
| current political parties trading off.
|
| It'd require, now, raising taxes beyond what even the
| most high-tax friendly Democrat would want, or
| substantially cutting Social Security, Medicare,
| Medicaid, and Defense spending. The Democrats will never
| reduce the first three enough, and Republicans will never
| reduce the first two and Defense enough.
|
| https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-
| guide/feder...
|
| Everything below those four is basically a rounding
| error, you could cut bits and pieces but nowhere near
| enough to balance the budget. And you can't cut interest
| payments without defaulting on the debt itself, which
| would create so many more problems. We need to raise our
| revenue by something like 50% or lower our spending by
| about 33%, or something in between on both.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| I agree. But my point is in that last clause:
|
| > this is squarely on them [the Republicans]
|
| They have the opportunity _right now_ to end the shutdown
| without requiring any Democratic or independent votes.
|
| They could have offered a compromise budget. They only
| needed five more Democratic or independent (one available,
| the other already voted yea) votes.
|
| They did not choose either of those options, instead
| presenting an option that they knew the Democrats would
| vote against. That was their choice, they could ignore the
| Democrats and pass it anyways, or they could work with the
| Democrats and both can get what they don't want.
| godelski wrote:
| > They have the opportunity right now to end the shutdown
|
| There are a lot of other options. Namely, as implied by
| my comment: compromise.
|
| They can also do extensions, provisional budgets, they
| can better carve out ensuring more workers actually get
| paid?
|
| And yes, they knew the Dems would vote against and they
| had months to reach that compromise. The same is true in
| the other direction too. The problem relates to a
| dysfunctional government where we've created such
| division lines that compromise cannot be reached. Playing
| into the belief that it is either side (on this specific
| issue) just furthers that problem. Watch the rhetoric:
| Republicans blame Democrats, Democrats blame Republicans.
|
| _Funding the government_ is not a partisan issue. _What
| to fund_ is, but you can 't always get what you want and
| that's a feature, not a bug.
| kemayo wrote:
| > The point of a 3/5th majority is to enforce compromising.
|
| It's worth noting that the 3/5 requirement for _most
| legislation_ is a recent development. Before around 2008 it
| was quite uncommon to require a filibuster-proof majority
| to pass legislation.
|
| There's a count of the times this has come up on the
| senate's website: https://www.senate.gov/legislative/clotur
| e/clotureCounts.htm
| buckle8017 wrote:
| You can't pass a budget without a super majority in the Senate
| (60/100).
|
| Nearly every Republican has voted on a continuing resolution
| which would just kick the can 30/60/90? days.
| Cody-99 wrote:
| >You can't pass a budget without a super majority in the
| Senate
|
| Yes you can. It is called reconciliation and it was made for
| passing a budget with a simple majority. Problem is when
| republicans used it earlier this summer they didn't actually
| fund the government fully so now they need 60 votes.
| gruez wrote:
| >Problem is when republicans used it earlier this summer
| they didn't actually fund the government fully so now they
| need 60 votes.
|
| How did the OBBBA get passed under reconciliation then? I
| thought the whole point was that bills could only pass via
| reconciliation if it didn't change spending/revenues?
| metaltyphoon wrote:
| Because a 60 majority is needed. They have the majority but not
| 60 so they have to compromise somewhere to get the necessary
| votes.
| thelastgallon wrote:
| The bill needs 60 votes. GOP has 53-47 majority. They need 7
| dems to vote.
| NewJazz wrote:
| So far 3 dems have voted for the GOP bill. Fetterman of PA,
| one of the NV senators, and Angus King of Maine.
| shawn_w wrote:
| The Senate rules require a 60+ vote majority to pass the
| funding bill. There aren't enough Republican senators to hit
| that, so they need a few Democratic votes. Yet they're
| unwilling to negotiate and work out a measure that Dem
| congresspeople can live with; it's their way or the high way.
| itsanaccount wrote:
| GOP apparently had enough votes to pass a budget by
| reconciliation. Which means the riders they want to add on,
| dropping Obamacare funding expansions are at minimum important
| enough to shut down over.
|
| They do not seem to be acting in good faith, not sending people
| to negotiate any of this. Combined with the leaking presidents
| comments about being able to force through things under
| shutdown they wouldn't be able to otherwise, I think a
| reasonable interpretation is this shutdown is intentional and
| part of someone's plan.
|
| edit: since subtext is dead its called Project 2025 and it's
| supposed to be a "bloodless coup" of the federal government.
| And if that isn't obvious by now please wake up.
| mikeyouse wrote:
| Also the current OMB director along with the President have
| apparently decided they can just carry out rescissions of any
| spending they don't like, even though the spending is
| congressionally mandated. Republicans in the house don't care
| to address the fact they've ceded the Purse to the White
| House so why would Democrats negotiate a spending bill when
| the president can decide he's not going to follow-through on
| D priorities after the bill is approved?
| LadyCailin wrote:
| Republicans haven't acted in good faith since Newt Gingrich.
| jennyholzer wrote:
| That's giving Ronald Reagan a lot of credit.
|
| edit: Forgot about Watergate for a second there.
| umanwizard wrote:
| Because the US system requires 60 votes in the senate to pass
| most bills, not 50. This is the root cause of a huge amount of
| the dysfunction in the country.
| cm2187 wrote:
| Is it? Requiring consensus to pass laws at the federal level,
| that are binding on the states, doesn't look like a terrible
| thing to me.
| mikestew wrote:
| The U. S. had already shut down, we are just now getting around
| to admitting it.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-10-01 23:01 UTC)