(There has been an interesting comment. It is shown at the bottom of the blog page.)
Military Bases.
During my lifetime, I have frequently visited military bases. Fort Bragg for summer ROTC training, Fort Knox for officer branch training, and numerous reserve unit military bases. When I was dean of the College of Business and Behavioral Science at Clemson University, ROTC was under the college's auspices. I went with the cadets on several training missions, including one where we did a rope crossing over a river and one where we stepped off the back of an airplane at 13,000 feet. None of these interactions were as surprising as a recent visit to a military based impacted by the governmental shutdown.
Unanticipated Furloughs.
Recently, a group of people and I traveled to a military base for a tour of some interesting military technology. I confess, I was excited about the opportunity to visit this particular base. From the military’s standpoint, the real purpose of the trip was to generate public goodwill.
When we arrived by bus, the highest-ranking non-commissioned officer told us that we had to wait to disembark. Dogs would come out to sniff our bus and luggage for explosives and contraband, then we could proceed. Having been involved in risk management, I found it reasonable to take precautions. Although, we did not fit the profile of a group of terrorists; we were more like a group of AARP members.
After almost forty minutes, the dogs had not arrived. We were told the dogs were delayed. After about an hour, we were told the dogs would not be coming because they were on furlough. Yes, furlough. None of us could figure out how dogs could be furloughed. We assumed this was a joke. It was not.
The dogs, owned by the military, were kept at an offsite facility and brought to the base to conduct searches. A commercial carrier transported them. Turns out, the transport agency would not transport the dogs because the government would not pay for the trip. The reason: Congress had shut down the government.
The Missing Piece.
Soon, we all hope, the government will be up and running again. However, the lack of a security dog reminded me of the old English rhyme that goes:
For want of a nail the shoe was lost; for want of a shoe the horse was lost; for want of the horse the rider was lost; for want of the rider the message was lost; for want of a message the battle was lost; and, for want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
You might be quick to say, “Well, not having a guard dog is not a big deal.” You might also point out that you are more worried about the employees guarding our nuclear stockpile. You might be right. But it seems that not having a guard dog to provide security could be a missing nail. (I should applaud the military personnel at the base. They came up with a solution to our problem and arranged a tour of the facilities for us.)
Unethical Behavior.
What we should all consider is how many nails were, are, or will be missing because the two parties cannot get their “political” act together. Let it be clear, I am not picking sides; nor am I making the case that one party is comprised of good people, and the other party is comprised of bad people. However, there are certainly things we should notice, such as the impact of not providing food stamps. I was watching a news broadcast where a man said that if he did not get food stamps, he would steal to feed his family. Not sure I would have said that, but it is a sad commentary. It reminds me of Jean Valjean from Victor Hugo’s Les Misérables.
However, what about the things that both individuals and companies are not aware of because we cannot notice them, or we would not anticipate that they are a problem? I certainly was surprised when the guard dogs were not available. Some events may cause long-term ripple effects that will not be known for years. All individuals and companies should be alert to the failures that could affect them due to a missing budgetary nail.
Corporate executives and their boards should diligently examine their operations to determine the short-run and long-run impact of the shutdown. Unfortunately, individuals and businesses will assume all is well when the government is reopened. This assumption will be shortsighted, unrealistic, and financially dangerous.
An example of a corporate missing nail--companies may see crime rates rise. After all, people do desperate things when they lose their safety net.
Guaranteed Solution To Solving The Shutdown.
There is one nail, which, if missing, could have a positive impact. Members of Congress and the president get paid during a shutdown. If members of Congress were not paid for any period during which the government is shut down, it might have a positive ripple effect. I am not saying their pay should be delayed. No. I am saying that members of Congress should not receive any compensation when the government is closed. That could be a missing nail that might lead to something fruitful. Of course, I do not anticipate that Congress will forego its compensation, like others must.
If you haven't read the blog describing the "However View," click here.
2 Responses
I agree it would be good for Congress to lose their pay if they don't keep the government open. The only drawback is would penalize people in Congress who are not rich. Those who are rich would not care.
Here is another way to solve the shutdown: all that is required is for a few Republicans to have the courage to do what they know in their hearts is right. Provide some funds to prevent a lot of poor people from losing their health insurance. What is wrong with that? The money Trump just sent to Argentina would more than cover the cost for two years.
An interesting approach. I am not sure how many people in Congress are poor. As far as Argentina is concerned, I do not believe that it is the best example. There are places where a lot more money is wasted that you do not mention.
An alternative approach I did not discuss in the blog might be to compromise. Novel thought. The Democrats claim they are trying to provide coverage for the poor. The Republicans say they do not want the country to provide health coverage for people who are in the country illegally. Why not extend the healthcare benefits for a year and work on a path forward for healthcare? If the Democrats are successful in the off-year elections, they can get the type of healthcare coverage they want. I realize this is a gamble.
At least one Republican has proposed this, but I have not seen any Democrats who are willing to make this compromise. Of course, I can appreciate the Democrats' position. They are using the shutdown as a tool for leverage, which is understandable.