It seems that once again we Americans are preparing for the fallout from the latest congressional temper tantrum. As what is now quickly becoming a yearly event (like Fat Tuesday) the latest government shutdown is looming with the deadline set as February 27th. The only good news? The Department Of Homeland Security is going to be the only victim of the two party bickering system instead of us facing another full government shutdown like we did in 2013. The reason this time? Republicans who are against the President's immigration executive action are using the department's upcoming funding approval to strong arm him into rescinding the order. And here we go again.
Government shutdowns have been a sad part of our legislative process since The Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which was simply supposed to do two things. Strengthen Congress' authority over the budget process and reduce the President's power to impound (hold up) funds intended or requested for the budget. Sounds reasonable enough, but leave it to the squabbling feds to throw a monetary monkey wrench into the financial works by having party lawyers find loopholes in the laws to serve their political purposes. In the last 40 years since the act was instated there have been 18 "funding gaps" that have held up the passing of the budget and since the government can't legally conduct actions without a "passed" budget, a shutdown scenario ensues. Six funding gaps occurred between 1976 and 1979 with no shutdown. Subsequently, since 1981 the remaining twelve gaps indeed did shut the government down from a few agencies to the entire government being affected. The only difference? Party separation between Congress and the President or the House and Senate. There were funding gaps during every presidency from 1981 to present. The only exception was George W. Bush's administration and the reason was simple. During both his terms the Senate was split 50/50 in the beginning and 49/49/2 at the end. Hence, no conflict. The House had a Republican majority until 2007. On January 4th 2007 both the House and Senate did come under Democratic majority, but with only one year left in his presidency it wasn't worth the aggravation to play the shutdown card. Besides they were really busy with their serpentine counterparts on Wall Street at the time...... But that's a rant for another day.
Is all this just a coincidence? We as a society could only hope. Since Congress controls the purse under the separation of powers as directed by the Constitution and holding money grubbing hands with the additional powers granted by the Budget Act of 1974 Congress has found a pretty big cash cow thorn to stick in an opposing party's side.
Public opinion varies on shutdowns. Most that are against feel as I do that they are nothing more that political posturing. Some, on the other hand, think it's a good thing. "Lets teach those Dems or GOPers a lesson.". Problem is if the lesson you think your teaching includes hitting them in the wallet.... your sadly mistaken. Congress and the President along with the Judicial branch still draw their salaries. (Remember... they control the purse.). The department and agency employees, everyday hard working people trying to put food on their table, do not. It's The Golden Rule "He who has the gold makes the rules.". Some of the 35 plus agencies that are affected by a full or partial shutdown include: The Department of Health which includes the CDC and the FDA, The Department of Homeland Security, The Department of Justice, The Department of Labor, The EPA, The FCC, NASA, The Small Business Administration and The Social Security Administration. All in all, a full government shutdown affects over 1.3million workers.
I've heard people say "I think we should pay our military personnel and the rest can go hang.". Well General Gettaclue, the military gets paid in a shutdown. Maybe not on time or all at once, but salaries for the military are guaranteed by law. Oh, and by the way, the people you just told to "go hang" have families and mortgages.... just like you. Put away your fife and drum, fold up your flag and educate yourself a little more before you open your star spangled mouths. Another statement I run across is "If that's what it takes to get things done, I'm all for it.". I hate to break your fiscal budget bubbles all you financial wizards, but you should stick to Harry Potter. Let me tell you something your missing Hermione.... during a shutdown nothing gets done except legislature to end the shutdown. It's the equivalent of a democracy layered hostile takeover, if you will. Both sides trying to get what they want while holding government jobs hostage. What people don't seem to understand is that the US Government is one of the largest employers domestically and abroad. A shutdown has the ability to create a serious financial crisis not only with the government's ledger but the free market as well. This is what both sides of the aisle count on. The fear of what may happen. My question is what happens when one or both sides go too far? It's economic Russian Roulette with our government holding the fiscal gun to their constituents heads. These are pretty big bargaining chips, wouldn't you say?
What the government seems to forget is that our budget is not a poker game and people aren't betting chips. I use this analogy in a very literal sense because by using these types of tactics both parties are gambling with citizens livelihoods while theirs are mostly unaffected. Congress, who historically is usually the biggest culprit of these shutdowns, doesn't lose or have their salaries interrupted. They are not required to furlough any of their employees and, more times than not, tend to keep their entire staffs on the payroll in order to "continue serving their constituents." Even the congressional gyms stay open while the gyms for the employees (yes they have their own and yes we do pay for them) do, in fact, close down. We all have to do our share, you know. It is quite a sacrifice that the congressional interns can't exercise. The only positive thought I find in all this is the possibility of a treadmill or rowing machine malfunction. You know, like the ones on YouTube.
These political playground spats have lasted as little as one day and as many as twenty one. And what did we as unwilling participants in all this get for our troubles? Having our legislators talk down to us. Telling us that is all too complicated for an average person not close to the situation to understand. I don't know about you, my loyal reader, but extortion is a pretty easy concept for me to understand. Also that negotiations are currently at work while both parties finger point at each other for the cause of the problem and at the same time saying they are hopeful for a resolution if the other party would just compromise. It's self serving party politics plain and simple. Do me a favor Senator Smokeblower, find the nearest fiscal cliff and jump off, would you please? I was less patronized to as a child and by much smarter people, I might add. What these congressional con artists can't seem to get through their senatorial skulls is that in order to have a resolution, the first thing you have to do is discuss the situation in a civilized, open minded, intelligent manner. Oh...I apologize....I forgot who I was writing about.
What we have to remind ourselves is that while our elected officials are using these shutdowns to push through their party agendas is that as drastic as the politicians and the media make them sound, most of the shutdowns have been benign for the most part. Financial inconveniences have been the most common result. To this date, thankfully, the predator has had no teeth. False accusations of economic collapse are tossed around to scare citizens into siding with their party in attempts to get the party in the minority to concede. Our politicians have been lucky so far that the damage has been nominal. I does not excuse the behavior of our elected officials, however. Using their constituents means to support themselves as leverage in a party negotiation is not leadership. A leader's first and foremost responsibility has to be the welfare of the people he or she leads. Taking into consideration all the problems a shutdown can create, capitalizing on the possible misfortune of others to achieve one's goals is betrayal of that welfare in it's purest form. Strictly an Observation. If you'll excuse me, I have some treadmills to assemble.
View my other articles and Like Strictly an Observer on Facebook
Follow Strictly an Observer on Twitter
Follow Strictly an Observer on Google+
