Most Recent Posts

After weeks of wondering what would happen, Americans now know:

1. Congress missed the midnight funding deadline for the new fiscal year, triggering disruptions in government operations.

2. That will slow economic growth, at least in the short term.

But just how far the damage will go is far from clear. Economists say they can't refine their predictions because they have no idea how long the shutdown might last or how many federal workers may be furloughed.

Among the questions they are pondering: If, as is now expected, the Labor Department fails to release the September unemployment report on Friday, will that lack of key data rattle investors?

"Getting some clarity would be a big relief for the markets," said John Canally, economist for LPL Financial, a Boston-based financial services firm.

Uncertainty about the scope and duration of the federal disruption reflects the division of responsibilities among branches of government. It's up to Congress to agree on a funding mechanism to reopen the government. But it's up to the Obama administration to determine exactly which workers are "essential" for the protection of life and property.

In some federal workplaces, the "essential" line might be bright and clear. For example, at the Smithsonian's National Zoo in Washington, visitors will be turned away, but pandas will get fed.

But other calls will be much more complicated, and directions from supervisors have been murky so far, according to Michael Roberts, a Food and Drug Administration employee who serves as president of Chapter 212 of the NTEU, a union representing workers at several federal agencies.

"We've been getting conflicting information, with no clear guidance at the moment," Roberts said.

To the best of his understanding, many workers may be told to stay home for a few days but then could be recalled as "essential." For example, imports may start coming into this country without inspection — until someone determines that certain shipments represent "the highest level of risk," he said.

So exactly how high does a risk have to be before inspectors get called back? No one knows, and the answer may be a moving target, he said. "You would think we'd have an idea what's going on by now," Roberts said.

Even trying to determine how many people the government employs can be tough because of part-timers. A census report shows the government employs about 2.62 million people. And of those, perhaps 800,000 could be called nonessential, or at least that's the most commonly reported estimate.

IHS Global Insight economist Paul Edelstein says that if Congress were to keep the shutdown going for, say, three weeks or more, then the gross domestic product — i.e., the sum of all goods and services — would lose momentum. Instead of growing by the expected 2 percent this quarter, the economy might slow to just a 1.5 percent pace, he said.

That would translate into 75,000 fewer net jobs for the economy this fall, coming on top of the loss of income for those 800,000 workers' salaries.

The government shutdown will "throw a wrench into the gears" of a recovering economy, President Obama warned Monday.

FDA worker Roberts said the loss of federal paychecks will have an impact on many families, from park rangers to secretaries to inspectors. "We have people who are struggling and living paycheck to paycheck," he said. "They don't know when or if they will be paid."

That means lots of households will be cutting back on spending, and that worries store owners.

"Our industry is keenly concerned," said Greg Ferrara, spokesman for the National Grocers Association. "There's a lot riding on this for us."

Many restaurant owners are worried, too. Andy Thompson, a co-owner of the Thornton River Grille in Sperryville, Va., says many of his customers come to visit the nearby Shenandoah National Park — especially now during the peak of leaf-viewing tourist season.

If federal workers in Virginia lose paychecks and the park gates remain locked for long, then his restaurant could feel the pinch.

But he said business owners have come to expect poor economic results from Congress when it comes to orderly budget planning. "Everyone has that feeling: Why can't they get it together?" he said.

In the three years since President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law, it has survived more than 50 votes in Congress to defund or repeal it, a Supreme Court challenge, a presidential election and, as of Tuesday morning, a government shutdown. Much of the spending for the law is mandatory and won't be cut off.

But now, it must survive its own implementation.

Tuesday is the day that Obamacare goes operational. Americans can begin signing up for health insurance on online marketplaces known as exchanges.

And that begins a new chapter in the nearly five-year-old political battle over Obamacare, says GOP pollster Bill McInturff.

"What happens today is we're going to move from this policy debate about Obamacare to a reality outcome debate: What impact does it have on millions and millions of Americans, and do they judge it to be good or bad?" McInturff says. "And I believe attitudes will shift based on that reality of the outcome of Obamacare."

The Political Costs

The president is confident that attitudes will shift in his direction. Like the Green Eggs and Ham story invoked by Republican Sen. Ted Cruz — Obamacare's chief antagonist in Congress — Obama is certain that when Americans try it, they will like it.

"That's what's going to happen with the Affordable Care Act," the president has said. "And once it's working really well, I guarantee you they will not call it Obamacare."

But Obamacare — as it will be called for the foreseeable future — has already exacted a stiff political price from the president.

Opposition to the health care overhaul fueled the rise of the Tea Party, which led to the Democrats' historic loss of their House majority in 2010. But Republicans paid a political price, too. Their efforts to repeal the law in 2012 failed, and Democrats held on to the White House and the Senate.

Through it all, public opinion has been consistent — consistently negative about the law, even if voters don't want it defunded. Health care historian Jonathan Oberlander says that's why he's not sure even a flawless rollout will change perceptions.

"This is not a program like Medicare or Social Security; it is a program that really is a series of policies and regulations and subsidies," he says. "And that makes it difficult to explain to the uninsured what the benefits are, and I don't think it's going to be easy for Obamacare, regardless of how well or not it does in the next year to overcome that chasm."

Related NPR Stories

It's All Politics

Unable To Stop Shutdown, Obama Pins Blame On GOP

Fast food, it turns out, isn't quite as fast as it used to be.

A new study finds that McDonald's posted its slowest drive-through times since this survey was first conducted 15 years ago.

At McDonald's, customers will spend on average 3 minutes and 9 seconds from the time they place their orders until they receive their food. That's about 10 seconds more than the industry average — and a lot slower than a decade ago, according to the study, which was commissioned by QSR, an industry trade publication.

And McDonald's wasn't alone in slowing down: Other chains, like Chick-fil-A, also saw their drive-through performance slow down.

Among the reasons for the more sluggish service: Today there are more choices on the menu, and the products themselves are more complex — flavored lattes, smoothies and salad bowls, for example. All of that can take longer to prepare and adds to the time spent waiting in the drive-through line.

Speed, of course, is essential to the drive-through experience, and drive-throughs are hugely important to chains such as McDonald's, Burger King and Taco Bell.

"Usually the drive-through accounts for 60 percent or 70 percent of all business that goes through a fast-food restaurant," notes Sam Oches, editor of QSR.

Of course, consumers also want their orders prepared correctly and on that score, Oches says, "accuracy is still really high."

The American quest for speed and convenience is now prompting some so-called fast casual chains like Panera to expand their drive-through offerings.

"It's a defensive thing, if nothing else," says Bob Goldin, an executive vice president with food and restaurant industry research firm Technomic. As Goldin puts it, you don't want to lose a customer who's in a hurry.

As the federal government lurches toward a shutdown, there's one thing a lot of people in Congress actually agree on.

A 2.3 percent excise tax on medical devices that took effect at the beginning of 2013 should be undone, they say. House Republicans included a provision to do that in a funding bill passed over the weekend that also sought a one-year delay in the implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota said in a statement last week that "there is strong bipartisan support for repealing the medical device tax, with Democrats and Republicans uniting behind our effort. I will continue to work to get rid of this harmful tax so Minnesota's medical device businesses can continue to create good jobs in our state and improve patients' lives."

Minnesota is home to Medtronic, St. Jude Medical and lots of smaller device companies.

What's the big deal? About $29 billion in funding for the expansion of health coverage under the Affordable Care Act is expected to come from the device tax. Hip implants, MRI scanners and catheters to unclog heart arteries are all affected. Toothbrushes, contact lenses, hearing aids and other consumer products are exempt.

As you might expect, AdvaMed, a big trade group for makers of medical devices, has been adamant about wiping the tax from the IRS' books. "AdvaMed has consistently and strongly opposed the $30 billion medical device tax because it will harm job creation, deter medical innovation and increase the cost of health care," the group's website says. "Congress should repeal it before it can do more damage to American Innovation."

Others say it's the device industry's consistent opposition to concessions related to the health law that got the tax slapped on in the first place.

Back in the early horse-trading days over the legislation that became the Affordable Care Act, lobbyists for the device industry made what looks more and more like a "strategic error," as The Wall Street Journal reported in 2009.

While the legislation was taking shape, the White House looked to health-related industries to cut deals that would help pay for the law. The Journal reported that the administration went so far as to ask for pledges.

When it came time for the device makers to pony up, they demurred, suggesting instead that the government get money elsewhere, such as from the groups that buy in bulk for hospitals. It didn't work.

"You either come to the table early, or you end up part of the dinner," a person close to the negotiations told the Journal.

In contrast, drugmakers agreed to save the federal government about $80 billion over a decade in exchange for protection from provisions they didn't like, such as legalized drug imports. There's no excise tax on pharmaceuticals.

The $80 billion was a compromise, the head of the drugmaker trade group PhRMA told NPR in 2009. The president wanted more, and the drugmakers were looking to pitch in less.

Even if many people agree that the device tax should go, some important ones don't.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called the repeal idea "stupid," through a spokesman, The Associated Press reported. "The Senate will reject any (funding bill) that includes a repeal of the medical device tax." And, in fact, that's just what happened shortly after the Senate convened Monday afternoon.

White House spokesman Jay Carney's response to a question about whether the president would support a repeal: "Absolutely not."