The American Spectator : Government Shutdown Times

Text Size

Government Shutdown Times

By Ross Kaminsky on 9.28.10 @ 6:08AM

This time the advantage would be with the Republicans -- one would think.

Georgia Congressman Lynn Westmoreland made news recently when he raised the possibility of a 1995-style government shutdown if, as widely expected, Republicans win enough seats in the coming elections to reclaim a majority in the House of Representatives. It would be the hardest of hard-ball politics, with Republicans apparently willing to bet that a shutdown showdown won't blow up in their faces like the spectacular failure of Newt Gingrich's gambit versus Bill Clinton.

The White House blog (part of this post-partisan administration's permanent election campaign) noted Westmoreland's comments on September 10: "...Republicans in Congress are busy telling partisans and Republican party activists to get prepared for the same stalemate and gridlock they brought the last time they were in charge."

Talking heads across the television and radio airwaves played along with the Administration's theme, casting Westmoreland's words as "a gift to the Democrats." They shouldn't be so confident.

To be sure, the wisdom of a shutdown is not a settled matter even among Republicans. Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey says it's too soon to be talking about a shutdown, suggesting that "there's a tendency to draw too many parallels between the '94-'95 experience and what we think might happen here."

Armey's thinking on a shutdown was laid out in a 2006 interview in which Armey discussed what went wrong for Republicans in 1995:

Newt's position was, presidents get blamed for shutdowns, and he cited Ronald Reagan. My position was, Republicans get blamed for shutdowns. I argued that it is counterintuitive to the average American to think that the Democrat wants to shut down the government. They're the advocates of the government... Here's the other thing: You're heard saying rather boldly in June that you're going to shut the government in the fall. You've set the stage for the press to report that the Republicans are now doing in October what they said they'd do in June. Even if, in fact, they thought it was the right strategy to shut down the government, they should have kept their mouths shut about it.

In addition to fear of repeating the '95 outcome, Armey now argues that it is "premature" to discuss a shutdown because, in a somewhat tautological argument, 2011 will be different from 1995 and therefore a shutdown may not be a smart or necessary tactic.

But there is another possible interpretation of the differences between 2011 and 1995, one which increases the likelihood of a shutdown being a political winner rather than tripping over one's own landmine: 1994 gave us 4.1% GDP growth, ending the year at 5.5% unemployment. This year looks set to give us below 3% GDP growth, a particularly anemic "rebound" from the worst recession since the Great Depression, and unemployment between 9.5% and 10%, levels only seen during one other period (mid-1982 to mid-1983) since before World War II.

Barack Obama is not Bill Clinton. While President Obama's approval rating is slightly higher than Bill Clinton's after the same number of days in office, Barack Obama started his presidency nine points higher than Bill Clinton did; Obama has seen the sharpest drop in job approval of any president post-WWII president other than Jimmy Carter. Perhaps most importantly, Obama is simply not likable the way Clinton was, a fact not to be underestimated in retail politics.

Barack Obama has for over two months maintained a disapproval rating higher than his approval rating, according to the RealClearPolitics average of Obama job approval polls. And for almost all of 2010, the GOP has had a lead on the "generic ballot," that is when people are asked whether they are more likely to vote for a Republican or a Democrat in the upcoming election. A recent RCP average of a 7.6% GOP lead was a remarkable number, given that until recent months there had never been a Republican generic ballot advantage greater than 5 points in almost 70 years of Gallup polling. Republicans win elections even when the generic ballot does not seem in their favor because Republican turnout tends to exceed Democrat turnout, all else being equal. This year looks to be an extreme of that phenomenon, with Gallup measuring an astounding 25% lead for Republicans on "voter enthusiasm."

Perhaps a government shutdown is in the Republicans' political interest, common wisdom and the rhetoric of the Obama bloggers notwithstanding. But leading Democrats think a government shutdown is a winner for them:

At a Democratic Governors Association meeting earlier this month, former Clinton advisor Paul Begala said of a possible government shutdown, "[S]hould it come, you know to quote the previous president, 'Bring it on.'"

And in a moment of almost laughable hubris, Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, offered this: "While American troops are in harms' way, it is outrageous that Republican leaders would even consider shutting down the government." It remains unclear which part of fighting a war requires Obamacare to be fully funded or the Department of Education to have each and every Nanny State bureaucrat rump firmly ensconced in an office chair. Still, Holland makes clear what the Democrats' argument will be should a shutdown showdown loom: "The Republicans' plan to shut down the government would mean that millions of seniors wouldn't get their Social Security checks or Medicare coverage and America's veterans wouldn't get the benefits they earned." The sky is falling… .

The problem for Democrats is that they're turning into the boy who cried wolf, or more precisely cried Ronald Reagan's nine most terrifying words in the English language: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." Americans remember (and will be routinely reminded by Republicans over the next five weeks) of the infamous prediction by the Obama team that unemployment would stay below 8% if only they were allowed to spend almost a trillion dollars of our children's money on "stimulus."

The Administration continues to talk about a few million jobs "created or saved," the latter being not accidentally unmeasurable, while -- back in the real world -- Americans know that the job market is a disaster. Furthermore, statistics covering the jobs that we know have been created show that they were no bargain: for example, in July a Government Accountability Office report said that the Department of Energy used stimulus money to create 10,018 jobs at an average cost of $194,213 per job. Not only is it hard to imagine how jobs cleaning up contaminated mining and military sites are worth an average $194,213 per employee, but it also must be noted that such jobs are inherently temporary, making the cost of these jobs even more unjustifiable. From the report:

Page: 1 2 >

About the Author

Ross Kaminsky is a self-employed trader and investor and is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute. He blogs at Rossputin.com and is the host of The Ross Kaminsky Show on Denver's NewsRadio 850 KOA at 11 AM on most Sundays.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (37) | Leave a comment

Booger| 9.28.10 @ 6:32AM

Republicans think a government shutdown may be good for them. Democrats think a government shutdown may be good for them. Since when did everybody turn Libertarian?

Clinton nee Publius| 9.28.10 @ 9:44AM

When they realized the Tea Parties would likely run candidates against them in 2012 if they spent any more money. This is about personal political survival and has nothing to do with the phony-assed "Pledge" from a bunch of old, corrupt elephants who just want us to turn our backs so they can go right back to stealing money.

No, this is Ryan and Cantor, and Boehner and Bachmann and Brady and McConnell and Cornyn and all the rest of the corrupt establishment Republicans realizing tricks are for kids; the Tea Parties are going to be gunning for them next. I can't wait to contribute money to the campaign that takes down John Cornyn. He's a big-government, establishment Republican and he got the message this spring when we defeated Kay Bailey Hutchinson's aspirations to be governor in our state (and her ambitious little plan to run for President). He's next and he knows we can't wait to rid ourselves of his presence. This is pure survival for these corrupt liars.

Mark James| 9.28.10 @ 11:43AM

After we (Utah TEA PArty) fired incumbent Repub. Bob Bennet from his Senate seat this year he was stunned. His buddy and fellow elitist and faux conservative Orrin Hatch was told he was next and he replied "bring it on". We're going to.

It's not the Dem/Repub thing that is the biggest problem, it's the house and senate seniority power rules and the power advantage held by incumbents that is destroying this country. We have to fire 80% of them and start over with term limits.

Brad Hobbs| 9.28.10 @ 12:15PM

maybe 90%... we have to return to the original plan of citizen legislators. We need low pay, low benefits, short term positions, short sessions for Congress. Preferably with travel by horse, heat by fireplace, no air-conditioning and all bills must be written by hand with a quill pen. The people who go here need to be willing to work for us, not be treated like a ruling class.

Alan Brooks| 9.28.10 @ 3:45PM

"Should American conservatives begin to worry the expected wave [in Nov.] will not materialize?
Henry Olsen"

DON'T WORRY, BE HAPPY.

A. Brooks| 9.28.10 @ 10:59PM

You are all bluffing, you don't want your elderly kin to lose their benefits.

Clinton nee Publius| 9.29.10 @ 12:06AM

AB - they have spent all the money we have and committed us to spending an amount equal to almost twice the entire current wealth of the entire planet. Enough is enough. The candy store is closed. Go scare yourself. We aren't going to be cowed by any more liberal b.s. about who goes without. ALL OF IT HAS TO END OR WE ALL HAVE TO END.

rose m elder| 10.12.10 @ 8:49PM

how is that good for gov. wen the people of this country pay taxes in this country how by doing this is that fair to the people do you want it to be a riot I would hope not . Please don't make things worse by doing that.

Shamus| 9.28.10 @ 7:01AM

Let's call it a holiday rather than a shutdown.

Realistically, this may be what it takes to get the economy back on its feet.

rainmaker1145| 9.28.10 @ 9:40AM

They can't spend money if there is no government in operation. It's the "balanced budget amendment" - Tea Party style.

Alan Brooks| 9.28.10 @ 8:30PM

"We need low pay, low benefits, short term positions, short sessions for Congress."

You might want to think more carefully.
Jimmuh would be glad to volunteer.

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.28.10 @ 7:35AM

Folks
A shutdown is not the answer. Simply have the House "under-fund" all of the zillion regulatory agencies.
The Regulators won't regulate if they are not paid regularly. (grin)

Redstateboy| 9.28.10 @ 1:31PM

Thank You!! If a Conservative Congress with some BALLS begin to systematically defund EPA, HEW, HUD and pulled the Plug on FreddieMac and FannieMae.. You'd hear such a sigh of Relief in the Country.

Nunya| 9.28.10 @ 2:46PM

Amen to that. Unfortunately, I don't think we have many statesmen in Congress who puts the country first. It's all about getting re-elected.

Amen Charlie| 9.28.10 @ 7:49AM

Old Texican has a Capital idea. Let's make him "Secretary of De Fundce."

Al Adab| 9.28.10 @ 4:17PM

Funding Czar?

Petronius| 9.28.10 @ 8:05AM

If the GOP has the guts to try it again, they should play for keeps. Lay off all non essential personnel without administrative or undocumented sick leave. Let them use annual leave if they want. All appropriations for salaries not paid out will be applied to debt reduction, and sequester all unspent stimulus money for the same.
2 Repeal any and every law and policy that do nothing but cost the taxpayers money; starting with ethanol and the ban on incandescent light bulbs. 3 make private property rights of small business owners absolute so that pecksniff municipal governments can't outlaw smoking or other lawful activities they don't like. 4 Enforce the 1st Amendment in all schools and college campuses getting government money on pain of getting cut off. 5 End tax with holding from private sector paychecks. 6 Entertain suits from bond and share holders against the Democrat Party for the shafting they got over the bail out schemes, including any RINO's who voted with them. I could go on, but there are other threads.
Any GOP member of congress who balks shall be tarred as a closet statist. After what Newt did to us our memories are by no means short.

Mark James| 9.28.10 @ 11:45AM

Ditto infinity.

Redstateboy| 9.28.10 @ 3:57PM

Here in the South we signal agreement by saying.... "yeahbuddy"

Dan Hirsch| 9.28.10 @ 8:16AM

If the cause of the shutdown is a refusal to pass a budget that our daring, darling President won't veto, would not a simple cry by House conservatives of "Please, Mr. President, don't shut down the government!" have a fair chance of resonating in the Interweb with sufficient volume to preclude the pre-web disaster that was the 1995 shutdown. A time I recall vividly - the roads in Chicago were freed of rush hours for a spell. Life seemed good and peaceful!

Alert1201| 9.28.10 @ 8:32AM

Another difference between 1994 and 2010 is the dissimulation of information over the internet and cable TV. In 94 most of our news was gained by the alphabates and CNN. The only voice of oppostion was talk radio and back then we only had Rush. Now its much different. Clinton was able to control the message (Reblicans are doing this), Obama will not be able to in '10.

JimH| 9.28.10 @ 10:22AM

While there is a lot of dissimulation of information going on, I think you may have meant dissemination. My apologies if I was incorrect.

Alice Moore| 9.28.10 @ 9:05AM

It seems many underestimate the MSM. In the last ten years they have shown great effectiveness in helping to elect Obama and making GWB a hated figure.

Many on the conservative side have banked on the intelligence and discernment of the American people as whole. The mistake of 1995 was that there were many on the conservative side that thought a government shutdown would be a quick slam dunk. After all, it was the POTUS that was denying the funds. Tip O'Neil pulled off the same stunt with Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, so why couldn't they do it with Clinton in the 1990s? They forgot one important point is that the MSM would always spin it to the Democrats.

If there is a GOP led Congress in 2011; the members would have to have a clear eyed view of what would happen. Make no mistake if the GOP does try this, the media will be trotting out the heart wrenching Ranger at Jellystone Park who has to close it and make the Chilldrunn suffer. Then there will be the 85 year old thrown out of his/her apartment because the mean ol' Republicans made sure he/she did not get the Social Security check.

Al Adab| 9.28.10 @ 11:41AM

Clinton outmaneuvered the Republican Congress after 1995. Obama must not be allowed to repeat that battle. Many agencies filled with unelected mandarins, who govern through the promulgation of rules having the force of law, simply need to be defunded. Free, self-governing people simply cannot allow themselves to be ruled through the actions of faceless nameless functionaries.

carnot| 9.29.10 @ 5:21AM

and if the mandarins simply reallocate what budgets they have away from essential functions?

megapotamus| 9.28.10 @ 11:44AM

Yes, the media will be big players here but other than the scope of the problem (much bigger this time) the most profound difference between Now and Then is the media landscape. Sure, Katie Couric will do all she can to help her side but what does she have to fight with? Not much and less with each passing ratings period. They may think it is cyclical or structural, even though Fox/WSJ and upstart rightleaning media grow solidly. It can't be the content, can it? So I would only admonish Team R on one point: if this is to happen, it had better happen organically, through the necessities of legislating, and it had better APPEAR to happen organically. Leave the stunts to Team O. With this doofus prowling the nation barely able to fill a backyard barbecue with reliable sycophants doing anything to distract people from the unfolding disaster would be counter-productive.

Doctor Right| 9.28.10 @ 2:21PM

Until such time as the GOP has a Veto-proof majority (as the Dems do now) and enough REAl Conservative members with balls to enact a serious agenda (as the Dems do now), fantasies of "defund the beast" are exactly that:

Fantasies.

Even if the GOP retakes the Congress AND Senate this year, they won't have a veto-proof majority, and more importantly, they'll still be infested with untrustworthy RINOs.

Assuming the GOP does do well in November, the next two years are going to be difficult, treacherous waters, and the GOP will have to tread very carefully. Obama is COUNTING on a "do-nothing" GOP Congress that he can demonize in the run-up to 2012 as being "against average Americans".

Step 1, retaking Congress and throwing roadblocks in front of Obama is within our grasp.

Step 2 is to follow the direction laid-out by the Tea Party movement and enact as much of that agenda as is humanly possible.

Step 3 is to hold Congress and get rid of Obama in 2012.

Steps 2 and 3 are NOT sure things.

carnot| 9.29.10 @ 5:41AM

ummm....as a life-long R and conservative watching from the sidelines with interest...what exactly is the agenda? I understand the boldface TP objectives. it's the

content that's a bit fuzzy...and the leadership that is going to orchestrate execution.

here's the problem. the dynamic now is defensive. but once the Rs become influencing agents beyond just being roadblocks...they too become accountable. there are players with ideas - e.g., Congressman Ryan. but how does the party coalesce around an identifiable set of goals/objectives, an execution strategy and leadership that exercises command and control? by design the TP is a coalition and not a unified political body. it's reactive at its core. how is it turned into a purposeful, targeted force?

reading through this thread: on one level I like it. I have knowledge that goes back to the EPA's inception of just how duplicitous that agency can be. nevertheless, suppose large numbers of EPA, DOE and other agency personnel are released....and the unemployment rate RISES - even if only temporarily. who is gonna receive the brunt of the blame? how will the MSM manipulate this?

TPers need to advance a positive vision and a roadmap. They haven't done that yet. The Pledge is just that...and short on details. An example of how this will play out - I have contributed a lifetime into Social Security. I better *amn well see a "refund" of those moneys at the tail end of my life....or I'm gonna be angry....and in a destructive mood. these are the very sorts of real problems conservatives/Rs are going to have to generate some answers for. where are those gameplans?

Peppermint Tea| 9.28.10 @ 3:24PM

Sarah Palin needs to sell the defunding of the US government to the people. The GOP needs to keep saying that the MSM should be running stories about average Americans who have lost their jobs, not government bureaucrats who make more and produce less (or nothing). They need to start with the least popular programs (obamacare, dept of ed, ag subsidies, stimulus, green jobs) and continue to the bigger things.

rainmaker1145| 9.29.10 @ 12:10AM

That scares me. She doesn't show any real smarts in economics so far, so she needs to do the right venue for this and her handlers appear to be a bunch of sycophants and Alaska feather merchants who do their thinking after they drink. I love the idea of real star power behind it, but I think she has to establish a firm base of belief in her understanding of the economic issues at hand. She would have to start doing homework right now on this and I don't see it as likely. I have a lot of respect for her, but she's not there for us yet. She's still dealing with the whole "me - I'm famous?" bit still...

hackamore| 9.28.10 @ 5:28PM

This comment -- “Republicans apparently willing to bet that a shutdown showdown won't blow up in their faces like the spectacular failure of Newt Gingrich's gambit versus Bill Clinton” – like so many others of its kind overlooks a critical factor at work in the run up to Fiscal Year 1996 when the House dominated by a GOP majority for the first time in decades took up the all important appropriation bills.

Speaker Gingrich had a once in a lifetime opportunity to make what DNC chairman Fowler called a “full frontal assault” on the ever widening social ‘entitlement’ programs marbled like so much fat into the budget ever since FDR . . . . and he blew it because, like Clinton, he let his johnson do his thinking for him.

Remember Hillary’s hand picked stooge Craig Livingstone? The one tasked to abscond with FBI raw data files on potential adversaries of the Clintons?

One of those raw data files contained decades old information about sexual impropriety on the part of the HERO who chaired House Judiciary, Henry Hyde. In an effort to spike the articles of impeachment he was threatened with disclosure, but being the heroic patriot he was, he took the heat and led his committee in presenting the pussy cat Senate with articles of impeachment which the airhead GOP Majority Leader treated like a case of the clap and REFUSED to take any action that would result in Clinton’s conviction before the Senate as triers of fact.

Unlike Hyde, Gingrich ran when threatened. The normally voluble Speaker fell mysteriously silent for six weeks after Clinton REPEAT CLINTON shut down the government by refusing to sign the appropriation bills that were put on his desk.

During that critical six weeks, the Clinton spin machine took to the field unopposed by the TRUTH, i.e., by Gingrich who cowered in cowardly silence lest his earlier sexual indiscretions be leaked to the “news” media.

And thus was born the myth that it was the GOP Congress that shut down the government . . . . a myth.

And thus did the once in a generation opportunity to roll back the enormous and enormously intrusive federal establishment pass by, unexploited by a then resurgent GOP.

Much as he might twist, spin, pitch, yaw and roll at this late date, his craven act of remaining silent at one of the tipping points of history is one that will follow him to his grave . . . . and beyond.

FOR SHAME!

Oldefarte| 9.28.10 @ 6:52PM

As Ken (Old Texan) said, simple de-funding of various selected/targeted [wasteful spending] programs/departments would seem to be the solution, rather than wholesale government shutdown [don't throw the baby out with the bath water]. Since congress has the power of the purse [and therefore controls spending by government], they can simply [if enough conservatives with guts are elected in November] eliminate/reduce governmental spending areas/programs/departments that are wasteful/redundant. In the '95 shutdown, the worded reference was made by the Clinton administration that ONLY ESSENTIAL GOVERNMENTAL EMPLOYEES NEEDED TO SHOW UP FOR WORK [well if there are any non-essential employees/departments, then they all need to be eliminated by congress]!!!!!!!

Rob| 9.28.10 @ 7:11PM

The premise of this article seems to be that the Republicans under Gingrich forced a government shutdown in 1994-1995. However, the Republicans passed a spending bill, but with less taxpayer spending than demanded by Clinton, with the result that Clinton vetoed their spending bill. Only the House has the constitutional authority to appropriate funds, and Clinton had vetoed their appropriation, so the government shut down. Thus the responsibility for the shutdown was Clinton's, not that of Republicans in Congress. If Obama were to veto a future spending bill passed by a future Congress, the responsibility for the shutdown would be Obama's, not that of any Republican members of Congress.

Dan| 9.29.10 @ 8:48PM

Absolutely correct!...but...how will we get around the MSM propaganda blitz-krig once Obama shuts down the government?What do you think the media will sell to ignorant masses?Who do you think socialist media will call accountable,the Democrats,Obama?

Nate| 9.28.10 @ 10:52PM

Oh yeah.

Republicans should DEFINITELY shut down the governmnet. Just about fourteen months before the '12 election.

Do it! You'll sure show them!

Rob| 9.29.10 @ 12:28AM

Does anybody seriously think that Republicans in Congress would not pass a spending bill, even if one different than Obama would like? They promised in the recent Pledge to pass a bill that would spend taxpayer money at 2008 levels. The real question would be how Democrats would respond if Obama vetoed this bill, claiming that Congress should appropriate more funds than at this level. Would Democrats in Congress join Republicans in trying to override this veto? Or would they claim that spending should exceed 2008 levels?

"Shut down the government" is unclear language because it's not legal language from the U.S. Constitution. The House can appropriate funds, and the president can veto a spending bill. Failure of the House to appropriate funds would shut the government down, but that didn't happen in 1994-1995 and would be contrary to the Pledge.

Oldefarte| 9.29.10 @ 12:25PM

Nate, you're brilliant;you should be compared to your imbicilic intellectual who resides at 1600 or to your boss at the D of J ["....Oh yeah.Republicans should DEFINITELY shut down the governmnet. Just about fourteen months before the '12 election.Do it! You'll sure show them!...."]. Did it ever occur to you that perhaps the intent of this argument concerned the post 11/2/10 elections [when hopefully the Republicans would thereafter gain the political numbers in order to cause by their votes a government shutdown? What a complete moron your mother must have birthed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!