A decision of the Government will really save money? (The Motley Fool)

With a decision of Government looking likely this weekend, is a question which asks many people sane, "Why are we doing this?"

CNN published an article with what could be a typical response. A close supporter, said: "I am not the least bit concerned by a decision of the Government." I think that we did know that there are many things that we really do not need to maintain this country is the Government. "And a Government decision would actually save us money."

Seems logical, but in fact, not a judgment would not "save us some money." It would cost more money. A bit of it, in fact.

When the Government stops - it arrived 16 times since 1977, more recently, in 1995 and 1996 - more non-essential services cease. Services that are essential to the "military, enforcement or direct provision of health care activities" retain fundamental employees working and maintain operations. But approximately 800 000 employees of non-essential services - all with parts of the IRS, national parks, of the Treasury, the Department of education - could be released. The Government gets serious in this tip. It is a criminal offence for an employee Federal furloughed to work during a stoppage. (In case you're wondering, Congress pay themselves as usual during a judgment.) They consider themselves very essential.)

But just because workers are given does not mean that they will go without pay. Once the Government starts once more, more furloughed works will receive back pay for their time off the coast. Bloomberg overloaded the numbers and came up with a specific tab: 174 million a day the Government is closed. And this is really a cost, not only a refund. Work which must be carried out (processing of tax returns, issue passports) stacks while employees are released, creating a need for massive, overtime once the Government starts to save.

Then there is the cost of lost revenue. Visitors spend about 32 million dollars a day in the national parks. Taxes and tax on the income generated by this expenditure are lost in a decision. Then there is loss of income revenues from taxes collected fines and a host of other air transportation costs–based that goes dark in a judgment. According to the Government Accountability Office, a judgment of day–three in 1991 cost 363 million in tax lost revenue and expenses. Corrected for inflation, running at approximately 200 million dollars a day.

Add it up, and the costs are not negligible. A judgment day–six in 1995, ended up to $ 800 million. It is easy to see how a case could cost plus 1 billion today, even if it lasted just a few days.

Some would say this is true, as a budget proposal negotiated might shave tens of billions off the coast of spending plans. But this is misleading. Independently of this Congress spending plans are, they should have been agreed before that the country faces a decision. These people take corners of the month. It is inexcusable to draw a problem not massively only at the last minute, but also beyond.

Most understand this. The Chairman of the House John Boehner warned last week: "If you stop the Government, it will end up by costing more than you will save because you stop contracts - there are many problems with the idea of close Government - is not the purpose.". Senate majority Harry Reid Leader, said yesterday, "We care very well people which would adversely affect this decision." We won't stop it working to avoid a shutdown. ?

Yet, we are.

What you think on a decision of Government? Sound off in the comments section below.

Fool contributor for free for 30 days. Us Fools can not all hold the same views, but we believe that treat a wide range of ideas makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.