-
The Democrats’ Walmart Obsession
June 4, 2013 | 112 comments
-
Real Immigration Reform Requires Free Markets
May 24, 2013 | 94 comments
-
McCain-Feingold Gave Us the IRS Scandal
May 21, 2013 | 122 comments
-
It’s.The.Law
May 20, 2013 | 20 comments
-
The Taxman Cometh (for Tea Partiers)
May 13, 2013 | 150 comments
Political Hay
Government Shutdown Times
This time the advantage would be with the Republicans — one would think.
(Page 2 of 2)
As of March 2010, nearly one-third of Recovery Act projects were facing cost or schedule difficulties or both — despite DOE’s efforts to choose low-risk, straightforward, shovel-ready projects for funding and to increase oversight — and overall spending was somewhat slower than expected.… Officials attributed these difficulties to technical, regulatory, safety, and contracting problems — some of the same issues that have challenged DOE’s project management in the past.
With evidence like this — which Americans understand is the rule rather than the exception — it’s hard to see Democrats offering a compelling reason for us to fear a temporary shutdown of the federal government. Indeed, a shutdown could be just what the economic doctor ordered, offering bureaucrats and Democrat politicians that many fewer hours to commit generational theft in the interest of spreading the wealth around or fundamentally transforming the nation, two of Obama’s most notorious stated goals.
A shutdown showdown would be led by likely Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH), a very different character from Newt Gingrich. Although Gingrich was and remains a man of big ideas, his political style was coarse and aggressive, whereas Boehner is more polished and more willing to “play the game”; Speaker Gingrich was easier to demonize than the relatively soft-spoken Representative from southwestern Ohio will be. Given Boehner’s lack of name recognition, Barack Obama’s going out of his way to attack him a speech in Boehner’s home state several weeks ago seemed like another rookie mistake by the Spirit-of-Saul-Alinsky-guided president, boosting the notoriety and perceived gravitas of his primary legislative rival.
If we do get to a shutdown showdown, what will be talked about — in stark contrast to 1995 — is how government is bankrupting our futures in a Quixotic pursuit of disproven Keynesian faith-based economics. Even the average inattentive American does or will see how Obama’s economic policies are little more than an excuse to grow the size and scope of government. (A remarkable Rasmussen Reports survey last month showed that 67% of the “political class” believe the country is on the right track whereas 84% of “mainstream Americans” disagree.)
A Republican decision to force a shutdown will ultimately be an extremely difficult question of perceived tactical advantage. Will Republicans try to accept responsibility for a shutdown, calling it a pro-active step to curb the cost and intrusiveness of government? If so, they put themselves at risk of “being demagogued” with ads showing Grandma Mabel not receiving her Social Security check on time and being driven to the ICU in an ambulance because she couldn’t afford her blood pressure medicine.
Republicans must blame the showdown on Obama and Pelosi, but they’ll need to be clever to make that responsibility stick to the Democrats in the eyes of the public. The GOP will want to try to shut down government in a way that doesn’t stop Grandma Mabel’s check and emphasizes how much money is being saved with every day the Nanny State takes a furlough day. While that may be theoretically possible, it will not only require near-unanimity among the Republican caucus (more likely than usual but still not something to rely on) but might need a GOP majority Senate to pass a bill funding only those parts of government that should not and must not stop operating for both “real” and political reasons.
The Democrats will do everything they can to make the shutdown look like a heartless attack on average (and hoping-to-be-average Americans). I’d also bet lunch that they will try to characterize the shutdown as somehow increasing the risk to American soldiers in Afghanistan. Indeed, Pelosi would like intentionally stop Grandma’s check and the shipment of some body armor to Kandahar simply to score political points.
In addition to these tactical considerations, any shutdown brought on by the GOP must be done with a well-articulated goal. It can’t be just “we’re going to gum up the works for a few weeks to save a few million [or even a few billion] dollars.” Instead, they’ll have to show the shutdown as a necessary ingredient in a bigger recipe for good, or at least better, government, and hope the broth isn’t already too bitter for the American public to swallow.
The value of a successfully orchestrated shutdown could be as big as any political shift in this nation’s modern history, showing “moderates” of both political parties that they will have the support of the voters if they stand up for limited, low-cost government. It could be a stake through the heart of the Keynesian “economics,” which is little more than an excuse to grow government or, to mix metaphors, a critical nail in the coffin of Progressivism, a coffin that in the past has never been nailed shut tightly enough to keep that mindless zombie from re-emerging.
Dick Armey’s words remain true that a Republican Congress, rather than a Democrat president, will be at least initially assumed responsible if there is a shutdown of the federal government. Unlike 1995, however, when that responsibility took the form of blame, in 2011 Republicans could be taking credit — or at least assigning blame — unless they mismanage the message, something Republicans have shown themselves particularly capable of doing.
If I were a betting man (and I am) I’d wager that a time will come when a shutdown, or at least a showdown over one, would have political advantage for the GOP and long-term benefit for the nation. But I’d bet more that the Republicans won’t have the courage to do it. It’s a bet I’d hope to lose.
About the Author
Ross Kaminsky is a self-employed trader and investor and is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute. He is the host of The Ross Kaminsky Show on Denver’s NewsRadio 850 KOA at 11 AM on most Sundays. You can reach Ross by e-mail at rossputin(at)rossputin(dot)com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (37) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Ross Kaminsky
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/09/28/government-shutdown-times
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- There’s Something About Cambridge
- Gabby Giffords Poisons the Well
- His Reach Exceeded His Grasp
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!