Shutdown, for what?

A quick Google search of the terms “government shutdown” and “other countries” returns an excess of articles from the past five years with pretty much the same title: “Why don’t other countries have government shutdowns?” To me, the question is absolutely ludicrous. You mean the government is expected to shut down? More importantly, how is this a normalized behavior?

While government shutdowns are possible in other countries, they rarely actually occur. When they do, they are usually an indicator of a major national crisis (think states of emergency), not a budgetary disagreement. In some parliamentary systems, the rejection of a budget by members of parliament is usually followed by a vote of no confidence to the prime minister, who is responsible for the drafting of the budget. Even in systems of government that mirror many of the political structures of the United States -- presidential systems, bicameral legislatures, strong executive branches -- budget disputes do not lead to government shutdowns.

Disagreement, debate and argument are natural parts of a healthy democratic system. Moreover, as my Montgomery County, Md. high-school government teacher, Mrs. Starin, liked to remind me: inefficiency (although perhaps not to the point of deadlock) was intentionally built into the American political system. It serves as a safety measure against rash, unilateral decisions. If gridlock was expected and even encouraged, why would the functioning of federal institutions and branches be tied to a budgetary consensus?

The answer is that it wasn’t. Government shutdowns as a political circumstance have actually only been around for the past 30 years. The phenomenon, according to an April 7, 2011 Foreign Policy article, emerges from a reinterpretation of the legal stipulations in the 1884 Antideficiency Act, which “prohibits federal agencies from conducting activities or entering into contracts that haven’t been fully funded by congressional appropriations." Formerly, when this was was done in most other countries in the world, federal agencies and services would continue to function by default while cutting unnecessary expenditure.

What is of concern is understanding the increasing reoccurrence of government shutdowns as a new form of partisan politicking that serves a similar function to a filibuster: they both exploit a structural loophole. Using a government shutdown as a tool to express political and ideological discontent is disgraceful and petty.  While the shutdown does not affect what are considered to be essential federal functions, furloughed employees are delayed pay until the re-institution of a budget, document issuing offices shutdown and some benefits, including unemployment insurance and veteran aid, are reduced or delayed. This is without needing to mention the high costs required for the government to shut down and start again, as well as missed financial opportunities.

Politicians, as public servants, should have the well-being of their constituents at heart, beyond ideological brawls. What is perhaps more surprising to me is the lack of public and media driven acknowledgement of the death of political responsiveness.

While a government shutdown was avoided yesterday, the newly passed spending bill will allow for these same claims and tactics to re-emerge in December. On my end, I would like to visit the Smithsonian museums over the holiday break.