Democrats don't want to fund a border wall and threatened a "government shutdown" if it was included in the budget under consideration. Without President Donald Trump removing, for now, the wall from consideration, a shutdown would have been likely.
Since Trump won the election largely on the popularity of the wall and his promise to make Mexico pay for it with a better trade balance, he cannot back down long-term without the loss of credibility with core supporters. But a government shutdown is never as bad as portrayed and, in fact, may be a good thing.
The fear generated by media when Republicans threaten a "government shutdown" is many times worse than when Democrats do; compare three years ago with the recent threats. The hysteria peddlers using this terminology, and the media that purposely play to it, must know these two words emit an extreme emotional response. Moreover, the phrase essentially becomes a weapon to be used on other potential government "shutdowners." It appears designed to frighten the least informed against the other political party, thus the alarming terminology. It also enables the media to have undue influence on spending and undermines the sole power of the House on the issue.
A budget always involves the House of Representatives, as it alone, constitutionally, must initiate all government spending legislation. "All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives" (Article I, Sec. 7, Clause 1). This places the people in charge of taxation. The Senate cannot initiate a tax bill but can adjust any initiated by the House.
So what does a "government shutdown" look like? Do the president and vice president resign now that the government ends? No, they stay on the job and receive full pay as before. Do members of Congress fly out of Washington, D. C., the following day and cease to draw their pay? Does the Supreme Court cease to deliberate on constitutional questions? Does the army come home and cease to protect us? No! No, No! Do states, counties and cities no longer function? No again; they have their own tax base. Policemen, prisons and teachers remain in place. Will we still get mail? Yes. The U.S. Postal Service functions as an independent business unit. Will we still get Social Security benefits, food stamps, unemployment compensation and veterans' benefits? Yes!
Why then the hysteria? Because these two words, "government shutdown," and the possibility of missed food stamps send the largely uninformed into a frenzy when they finally awake from their stupor. They often know nothing of the wranglings of government to protect them from themselves, and they oppose any proposed government diet that might reduce their daily feed. They worshipfully listen to the party and political leaders which are least likely to disturb this base.
Short of an overthrow of the government from within, the collapse of our financial structure (which is becoming ever more likely due to our obsession to live beyond our means) or a successful invasion from without, there will never be a real government shutdown. So, cease the media frenzy and subsequent overreaction!
How do we know this? Because we have had 18 "government shutdowns" since 1977 according to the Congressional Research Service, the Reagan Administration having eight of them alone. Because in 1979 the government was shut down for 10 days while Congress argued over a proposed salary increase for the legislative branch. Because we had a five-day shutdown between Nov. 14 and Nov. 19, 1995, and a second one of 21 days, between Dec. 16 and Jan. 6, 1996, and none of the bad things mentioned above happened. No, not even one! In fact, the public as a whole didn't even notice.
Then what did happen? "The Federal government of the United States put nonessential government workers on furlough and suspended nonessential services..." (Wikipedia). Essentially all went on as before except some paychecks were a few days late. Apparently, the federal government does (when forced to do so) know what nonessential services are, after all, and is capable of closing them if it has the will.
Our spending addiction has given our children and grandchildren a $20 trillion debt. Of course it is painful to curb our appetite but, the longer we wait, the more painful, drastic and life threatening it becomes. Most of the programs cut in both shutdowns were not in areas of clear constitutional authority, as defined in Article I, Section 8; so, in time, such cuts should really become permanent or be subjected to the amending process for appropriate authority.
Usually diets have some benefits in and of themselves. In the case of the federal government shutdowns of 1995 and 1996, both parties benefited: Democrats, under President Bill Clinton, because thereafter he was credited with "the first four consecutive balanced budgets since the 1920s"; and Republicans, because they retained control of both houses of Congress largely because of the popularity of their hard line on the budget (Wikipedia).
At worst, a "government shutdown" is really only a partial shutdown of nonessential services and a delay of payment for some few federal workers. The federal government just goes on a long overdue diet and gets back to the basics -- a diet it really needs to continue for the health and well being of our nation.
So, let's abandon this "government shutdown" terminology in the future and quit frightening the less informed and causing them to overreact.
Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for more than 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Editorial on 05/03/2017