The shutdowns keep right on coming

by | Jan 27, 2018 | Features, Politics | 4 comments

With the latest government shutdown, which coincidently came last weekend on President Donald Trump’s first-year anniversary in office, the tally for failing to authorize funding for the federal government now stands at 19.

Since the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, every president except George W. Bush has endured the temporary discontinuation of federal nonessential services.

Shutdowns have occurred with divided government as well as when one party has majorities in both chambers of Congress and occupies the White House. The reasons for the shutdowns also vary.

As for the shutdown that ended Monday, like its recent antecedents, representatives from both major parties feverishly explained why the federal closure was the fault of the other party. But it won’t be long before we’re unable to recall the reasons for this latest kerfuffle.

Regardless of one’s political orthodoxy, this was another low point in governing. It ought to cause collective embarrassment among the electorate.
It is so tempting to classify this as much ado about nothing, but it is about something. The latest government shutdown revealed once again the hyper-partisan nature that embodies our politics.

This latest shutdown was not about the 9 million children who are under the Children’s Health Insurance Program, or CHIP — whose parents usually earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford private health coverage. Nor was it about the estimated 1.3 million active-duty military who would have not been paid.

So what that the 2013 government shutdown furloughed about 850,000 government employees daily, and similar was forecasted this time around? These were all political props, tools for propaganda speaking exclusively to one side of the hyper-partisan divide. For political gain, real people, many of whom could care less about the political talking points of either side, were momentarily reduced to a set of statistics.

Recent history also tells us that whichever party the American people ultimately decide bears the burden of fault, there will most likely be little political price to be paid. The government shutdown in 2013 placed the blame squarely with Republicans, but in the 2014 midterms, they were rewarded with the majority in the Senate and expanded their margin in the House.

With no political price to pay, what prohibits Congress from playing with people’s lives?

The biggest problem that I have with the shutdowns in general is that lawmakers are immune from the repercussions of their actions. I wonder how many shutdowns would occur if the failure to reach a spending agreement would result in an across the board 25-percent reduction in the fiscal budgets, including salaries, of every member of Congress?

If Congress was unable to reach a spending bill after one week, why not levy an additional 5 percent each week thereafter? Why is Congress considered an essential service when it is Congress’ failure to reach an agreement?

Draconian? Perhaps.

What better way to find out how important are the issues each side claims to champion? Under such conditions would Democrats draw the line in the sand for DACA? Would Republicans deliberately place poison pills in the agreement they know Democrats cannot stomach?

Governing is not keeping promises made on the campaign trail. Sometimes it requires making tough choices. It is supporting something that philosophically one would oppose.

Does anyone doubt Ronald Reagan’s commitment to lowering taxes? But that commitment did not prohibit him from raising taxes when it was necessary.

The people we send to Washington represent their congressional districts and states, but they also bear a larger responsibility to all Americans. It matters little to the men, women and children who must undergo the brunt of this political malfeasance whom the American people decide is the ultimate perpetrator.

From the Federalist Papers to the Constitution, our democratic-republican form of government was never conceived as a zero-sum game. But that is what we’ve morphed into, one where victory can only occur when the other side has lost.

Once the shutdown ended, like ESPN’s SportsCenter, the events were recapped with highlights and analysis determining winners and losers. How can there be a winner when the 535 members of Congress and the president were unable to fulfill one of their fundamental responsibilities, which is to keep the government running?

As long as this divisive orthodoxy reigns supreme, nothing will change. By our collective unwillingness to hold elected officials accountable, we the people send the vociferous subliminal message that such behavior is acceptable.

Obviously, my proposal to reduce the budgets of Congress for failing to keep the government open would be a nonstarter. Sadly, the people who could impose such laws are preoccupied with shutting down the government and political posturing in the aftermath and are unaffected by the harm they could cause.

4 Comments

  1. Norma Munn

    Just by way of observation, the NY State legislature failed to pass an budget on time for several years. I no longer recall exactly how many years, but 8-9 is my best recollection. The budget is due the end of March and one year it passed in mid-August which with schools starting in a couple of weeks and no school district had final information about how much money their district would receive from the state caused real problems. The reaction from around the entire state resulted in a change in the payment of salaries for legislators. No budget by the end of March, no pay. Staff got paid, but not the politicians. The budget was not quite on time the next year, but it was only slightly late, and in a couple of years the habit of getting it done on time returned. However, many of the politicians in DC are much wealthier than most members of the NYS legislature. I am not sure a missing paycheck would make enough difference. Many also have campaign funds in their possession, and the choice of what they can be used for is rather flexible, to put it charitably. I would also vote to decrease the time out of session although given how little they get done i doubt it would make any difference.

    Cutting the budget would only harm people who genuinely need the funds that come from the federal government, i.e., food stamps, WIC, schools lunch programs, etc.

    • Byron williams

      The budgets and salaries of every member of Congress

  2. Scott

    When I was a young man the saying was “It’s the System” & the System was spoken of as real. Richard Wolf, is it spelled that way? the economist on YouTube that like Chris Hedges comes out of Marxist theory that is all great till it is discovered for real private property makes a big difference & you pay one way or the other. Either you pay elites with access to everybody’s stuff or some people inherit so they get compound interest and then more if they do something and fix it so feudalism is the law of the land way off the mark from what Democracy was supposed to be about.
    I chose for Transcendia my model, model nation of airports a parliamentary system wherein there are Parties & ministers have portfolios and you will sometimes see not impeachment but calls for a vote of no confidence. Nothing works by the way in human systems that people don’t believe in. Out legislators don’t much believe in our system or they’d make it work. We’ve ended up with a Bad Faith Administration & they have to be stopped with the literal take over of their offices at this point & Gov. in Exile & some smart strategic moves in this that is class warfare.
    Barbara Tuchman said it was time after Nixon for a parliamentary system. David Cay Johnston says in the Title: It’s Worse than You Think, and if you think there is little hope of a nip and a tuck and waiting it out, I’d say you were wrong.
    Summer, Summer is the season of war. Impressive that the women were out in big numbers but I didn’t get any clear slogan or message of how it is going to translate into some serious business. Sanders is on the right track testing to see if he can get millions to watch him past the corporate media that is a real threat for it’s protections for its own regardless. Serious bad faith at the top like the rotting fish head you’ve heard of. So yeah. There is the normalcy bias good for the paralysis that works for the one percent of which none are going to change anything since they are getting everything and there are stooges in all the important institutions offices to the point the only recourse is in fact occupy and just put them out into the street.

Related Posts

GET UPDATES

Get the latest posts from PoliticsNC delivered right to your inbox!

You have Successfully Subscribed!