Do We Dare Let Government Shut Down?

Academically, there are some benefits

On Saturday (March 8), Republicans presented yet another stop-gap spending bill to keep the government running through September. If you’ll recall, this was a constant problem all last year. No lasting budget bill was passed as Congress continually kicked the can down the road, often waiting until the last minute before getting a bill to the president’s desk for signing. Now, it’s a new president and the GOP really wants this bill to go through, but…

“I cannot support efforts that will continue this lawlessness that we’re seeing when it comes to this administration’s actions,” Andy Kim, a Democratic senator of New Jersey, said. “And for us to be able to support government funding in that way, only for them to turn it around, to dismantle the government – that is not something that should be allowed.”

Add to that several Republicans who have traditionally voted against continuing resolutions such as this one, and getting any kind of bill passed could be challenging. The GOP majority in the House is narrow in the first place, 218-215. It is questionable whether Johnson can convince all Republican representatives to vote as one block. Even then, should a bill pass the House, it still has to make its way through the Senate where it is unlikely to pass without Democratic support.

The last shutdown occurred during Punk’s first term and began in December 2018, eventually stretching on for 35 days and becoming the longest shutdown in US history. That time the shutdown occurred because the president was demanding funds to build a wall along the southern border. He eventually signed a bill that did not have that funding.

Ezra Levin, co-founder and co-executive director of the progressive group Indivisible said, “I absolutely think it’s possible that the Republicans’ plan is to drive us into shutdown. I think that it is giving them the benefit of the doubt to say that they are interested in making any kind of deal. Democrats have some amount of leverage here, but if we head into shutdown, there should be no illusion of who benefits and whose grand plan this is.”

Worth noting at this point in the conversation is the fact that the proposed bill includes about $892.5 billion in defense spending and about $708 billion in nondefense spending. The defense spending is slightly above the prior year’s level, but the nondefense spending is about $13 billion below last year. There are plenty of reasons why Democrats might not want to support this bill.

This raises the inevitable question: should Americans support shutting down the government? Is there any benefit to doing so? If we think of this purely as an academic exercise, we can find a few reasons to support a shutdown. Here’s what we came up with.

1. Reduced Government Spending and Fiscal Restraint:
   • A shutdown forces a temporary halt to government spending on non-essential services. Proponents of smaller government might argue this is a positive outcome, demonstrating fiscal restraint and potentially leading to long-term reductions in government expenditures. In the context of personnel cuts, some might argue a shutdown is a logical extension of reducing the size and scope of government. During a shutdown, discretionary spending for affected agencies ceases. This can lead to a temporary decrease in the national deficit. Advocates might see this as a way to control government debt and promote fiscal responsibility, especially if they believe government spending is excessive or inefficient.  
   • Caveats and Counterarguments:
     • Temporary Savings: Shutdown savings are often temporary and can be offset by costs associated with restarting government operations, back pay for furloughed employees and economic disruptions.  
     • Economic Disruption Costs: The economic disruption caused by a shutdown (see point 3) often outweighs any short-term savings.
     • Essential Services Still Funded: Essential services (national security, law enforcement, mandatory spending programs like Social Security and Medicare) generally continue to be funded, so the actual spending reduction is limited.  
     • Political Motivation: Arguments for fiscal restraint during shutdowns are often seen as politically motivated tactics rather than genuine long-term fiscal strategy.
2. Political Leverage and Forcing Policy Changes:
   • A shutdown can be used as a political tool to force the opposing party to negotiate and compromise on policy priorities. In a politically charged environment, particularly after contentious events, one side might see a shutdown as a way to gain leverage and achieve their legislative goals (e.g., spending cuts, policy riders). If the Democrats believe strongly in certain policy changes (perhaps related to the personnel cuts), they might see a shutdown as a way to create a crisis that forces negotiations and concessions from the other side. The shutdown becomes a high-stakes bargaining chip.
   • Caveats and Counterarguments:
     • Public Backlash: Shutdowns often trigger public anger and blame, which can backfire politically on the party perceived as responsible.  
     • Unpredictable Outcomes: Shutdowns are inherently unpredictable and can lead to unintended consequences, making them a risky political tactic.
     • Erosion of Trust: Using shutdowns as political leverage can further erode public trust in government and political institutions.  
     • Disproportionate Harm: Shutdowns disproportionately harm government employees, contractors, and those who rely on government services, raising ethical concerns about using them as political weapons.  
3. Highlighting Government Dysfunction and Inefficiency (from a Republican perspective):
   • Some who are deeply critical of the government might argue that a shutdown, while disruptive, exposes executive overreach, a term that’s been batted around a lot over the past six weeks. They might believe it demonstrates that many government functions are non-essential and that society can function effectively with a smaller government footprint. In the context of personnel cuts, a shutdown could be seen as further validating the idea that government is bloated and needs to be trimmed. Shutdowns force agencies to prioritize “essential” vs. “non-essential” functions. Republicans might point to the services deemed “non-essential” as evidence of unnecessary government activity. They may argue that the temporary disruption is a worthwhile price to pay for a long-term reduction in government size and scope, echoing the President’s statements regarding current economic conditions.  
   • Caveats and Counterarguments:
     • The mischaracterization of “Non-Essential”: The term “non-essential” during shutdowns is a budgetary designation, not necessarily a reflection of the actual value or importance of those services to the public. Many “non-essential” services are vital for public well-being, economic activity, and social support.
     • Real Harm to Citizens: Even if some services are deemed “non-essential” by some, their disruption can cause real harm and inconvenience to citizens who rely on them (e.g., passport processing delays, park closures, business permit delays).  
     • Undermining Public Trust: A government that is repeatedly unable to perform its basic functions due to shutdowns erodes public trust and confidence in its ability to govern effectively.  
4. Opportunity for Re-evaluation and Reform:
   • In a highly theoretical and less frequently voiced argument, some might suggest a shutdown provides a forced “pause” that could be used to re-evaluate government programs, identify inefficiencies, and potentially implement reforms when government operations resume. The disruption of a shutdown could, in theory, create an opportunity to examine government functions with fresh eyes, identify areas for improvement, and streamline operations when agencies are restarted. Republicans would argue they’ve already been doing this, hence the severe layoffs of federal employees.
   • Caveats and Counterarguments:
     • Disruptive and Chaotic: Shutdowns are inherently disruptive and chaotic, making them a poor environment for thoughtful re-evaluation and reform.
     • Focus on Immediate Crisis Management: The immediate focus during and after a shutdown is on restarting operations and addressing the immediate consequences, not on long-term strategic reform.
     • Political Obstacles: Some fear Trump and the new OMB director, Russell Vought, might use the shutdown as an opportunity to sideline federal agencies and departments that the president deems unimportant.

It is crucial to reiterate that the arguments above represent potential justifications sometimes offered for government shutdowns, often from specific ideological viewpoints. The overwhelming consensus among economists, policy experts, and the general public is that government shutdowns are detrimental and harmful.

The widely documented negative consequences of shutdowns far outweigh any theoretical or ideologically driven “benefits.” Therefore, while it is possible to articulate arguments that frame a government shutdown in a potentially positive light from certain narrow perspectives, these arguments are generally weak, highly contested, and overshadowed by the significant and well-documented negative impacts of government shutdowns on the economy, public services, and the overall functioning of government.

The Speaker of the House has scheduled a vote for this coming Tuesday, March 11. Very few people are expecting the bill to pass on the first vote. The longer it takes the House to approve the bill, the less time the Senate has for debate, and rushing the Senate only makes them angry.

This is going to be a continuing story worth watching closely. Just as it is impossible to sit here and guess what might happen on the vote, it’s also impossible to guess how the White House might react if the government does shut down. We certainly can’t expect a ‘normal’ or ‘reasonable’ response from this administration. If they see a way to create more chaos and carnage, be sure that they’ll use it.

This could be a very interesting week.