Government Shutdown When Government is Already Being Shut Down
Democrats are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
WaPo (“Washington braces for a government shutdown — as DOGE cuts continue“):
Government shutdown deadlines — and even full-on shutdowns — aren’t new for Washington, but this time, with federal funding set to run out Saturday after midnight, no one knows quite what to expect.
A drive by President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk, who oversees the U.S. DOGE Service, to unilaterally shrink the government has seen tens of thousands of federal workers dismissed or opting for deferred resignations. That means some of the disruption that a shutdown can provoke for federal workers or citizens who need government services is already here.
The administration’s push for cuts has also scrambled lawmakers’ negotiations, with Democrats — who in recent years have sought to keep the government open at all costs — opposing funding legislation as part of what they call a last-ditch bid to stop Trump’s attempts to exert more control over spending.
Meanwhile, Republicans — who have forced Washington to the brink of shutdowns several times recently in pursuit of budget cuts — are in charge of Congress and the White House and have lobbied their members to keep the government open.
And it’s still not clear what parts of the government would close in a shutdown: The White House budget office removed Biden-era guidance on shutdown plans from its website earlier this week. A spokesperson did not return requests for comment about how much of the government would remain operational during a shutdown.
On Thursday evening, the White House website that houses shutdown preparation instructions instead led to a page with an error message.
There’s no precedent most officials can recall for a shutdown fight that’s effectively about whether the government has the power to shut itself down.
“For nearly two months, President Trump and Elon Musk have been shutting down our government piecemeal, illegally shuttering programs, agencies, and now attempting to close entire departments,” Sen. Chris Coons (D-Delaware) said Wednesday. “The House Republican bill enables Trump’s and Musk’s devastating and unconstitutional cuts that have reduced our government’s ability to protect public health and safety, made it harder for seniors to get their Social Security checks and created an opening for China by dismantling our foreign aid partnerships.”
But a shutdown, some experts say, could play into the hands of the Trump administration and give White House officials broader latitude to reduce the scope of government. It could also offer a test for Trump and Musk’s arguments that huge swaths of the bureaucracy are wasteful and unnecessary — and wouldn’t be missed if they closed down and never reopened.
“Whatever your problem is,” Rep. Tom Cole (Oklahoma), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, warned Democrats on Tuesday, “whatever your concern is, it’s going to be worse in a government shutdown.”
Josh Marshall reports that the American Federation of Government Employees, the largest federal employees union, is urging Democrats to force a shutdown rather than sign on to the CR. This is a shocking development as AFGE has always dreaded shutdowns in the past. Their reason for reversing course in this instance? We’re essentially already in a shutdown.
Under the current CR, federal workers are being treated no better than they will be if government funding ceases Friday night. Yes, it is true that workers who have not yet been fired are at least drawing a paycheck—for now. But it H.R. 1968 becomes law—a measure that ignores the administation’s brazen refusal to carry out duly enacted laws of Congress and further erodes Congress’ power of the purse—AFGE knows that DOGE will dramatically expand its terminations of federal workers and double down on its campaign to make federal agencies fail because there will be nothing left to stop the Administration for the balance of Fiscal Year 2025, if ever.
Thus far, it looks like the Democratic leadership in the Senate concurs.
Of course, there is also the possibility that the shutdown will be used to demonstrate that the vast number of federal workers are “non-essential” and can therefore be done away with permanently.
Except this is a lie. The problem is that it will take weeks or months for the effects these lost jobs to start showing up. The Federal Government was already crippled by years of Republican refusal to actually fund it properly and Democratic acquiescence. It’s been mortally wounded now by Musk and Trump. Time to just let it get pushed over. It’s probably the least worst option at this point.
Also, has anyone seen who the wavering Dem senators are other than Fetterman?
I kinda feel like I should clarify that I don’t think you are lying Dr. Joyner, but that this is the lie Musk/Trump/GOP is using.
Heh. Inquiring minds would love to know who these alleged experts are, and what their field of expertise is.
I’m normally against shutdowns but now?
This is a problem of the Republicans own making. Make them own it. Demand amendments. Force the House to return from their vacation. Create pain. And they better get their damn messaging right. Of which I have no confidence they can do.
I’ve been hearing demands from my Republican congressman for “regular order” for years. Make then do it.
If GOPer pols can go in front of microphones and blame Joe Biden for the economic havoc Trump’s idiotic tariff obsession is causing, they will certainly blame Dems for a shutdown, despite the fact that Republicans have the majority in both houses of Congress, and it is Republican “deficit hawks” who are screwing this particular pooch. And the media will bothsides it rather than pointing at the GOPer fingerprints all over the event. Truth and facts are obsolete here in Trumplandia.
More analysis from TPM why arguments for Dem to avoid shutdown are wrong:
“TPM”
snip, more, then conclusion:
Also, what is happening now is already pretty much a shutdown – government pared down to a few “essential” services.
If this were true, then why did this not happen during any of the other MANY shutdowns we’ve had thanks to the Republicans? It’s not like they haven’t always wanted to drown government in the bathtub.
@Charley in Cleveland:
They have enough Republican votes to get to 50. They need Democrats to get to 60.
@Han:
While there has been plenty of small government rhetoric going back to at least Reagan’s 1980 campaign, we’ve never seen anything even remotely like DOGE and the willy-nilly shuttering of federal agencies. Previous administrations have imposed hiring freezes and the like but nothing even remotely like this. Every previous Republican president has desired to actually govern, and their ability to do so lies in having an Executive branch to execute their policy preferences.
Cant they use reconciliation for a budget bill and avoid the need for 60 votes? The problem for the GOP has been that their radicals keep them from passing bills. Given what is already happening with DOGE what if they just give in to the radicals and come up with even larger cuts?
Steve
There’s no point negotiating when the other party is openly declaring they won’t abide by any agreement anyways
Democrats don’t really have a good hand to play. There are big risks from forcing or not forcing a shutdown.
I’m personally in favor of playing hardball and told my Senators that’s my preference.
Even if Democrats get blamed, it’s still very early in the cycle, with the mid-terms almost two years away. Any negative political effect would likely be minimized at that point. Trump likes to say he’s a deal-maker, well, this will be an opportunity to force him to deal without having the initiative.
However, there is also the possibility that Senate Republicans will use this to get rid of the filibuster. I think that’s unlikely, but it can’t be discounted.
I know for a fact that organizations and supervisors are very worried about this. Any personnel/positions designed as non-essential during a shutdown would likely be targeted first in the upcoming RIFs. Organizations will need to be strategic in deciding which people/positions to designate as non-essential.
Another factor is that it’s been de rigueur that furloughed personnel get full pay once the shutdown is over. That is not at all a safe assumption this time around, but it’s something Democrats will probably also have to play hardball on. So, supervisors and organizations will also need to factor in employees who can’t afford to lose pay for an undetermined period of time should back pay not be authorized.
@James Joyner:
I realize that this is depending on good faith from Republican senators, which we probably shouldn’t do, but there may not be 50 Republican senators in favor of this bill. Democrats certainly shouldn’t rescue Republican senators from the bed they’ve shit themselves in.
Again, this nonsense is completely within Congress’ ability to stop. We should not lose sight of that.
Insert Hot dog man, and/or https://theonion.com/democratic-leaders-stand-real-still-in-hopes-no-one-notices-them/
@steve: I’m not sure if they can use reconciliation for this, but I do know you only get one reconciliation bill a year, essentially, and if they use reconciliation for this, they couldn’t use reconciliation for the massive tax cut they want. And it’s not clear the House Bill could pass with just Republican support in the Senate either way.
I get that democrats have to do something, but I’m torn on the Senate CR vote. I’m not sure enabling a shutdown is what’s needed, since the administration and many republicans see a shutdown as a good thing, and:
With no incentive to end a shutdown, it could last into FY26, while the administration keeps its favored functions operating and lets the rest wither on the vine.
There are other things that can be done, notably the “shadow administration” that has select democrats briefing the press on what should be happing each day.
As a baseline, Democrats should grow a spine, refuse to support any CR unless it specifically protects Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
Show people you want to protect programs that are very important to The People.
At this point, we don’t have a functional democracy. We have, at best, government by whim, controlled by people who very clearly have no understanding of what they’re doing, nor any inclination (and possibly no ability) to learn. If the Democratic Party isn’t willing to do everything they can to stop this, which includes shutting the government down, then why have a Democratic Party? Why bother voting for a budget when said budget apparently isn’t considered binding by the executive branch, and the other members of his party don’t seem bothered by this?
At some level, I prefer a complete government collapse to a government that pretends to be a democracy. I don’t know what that would look like, but I think it would be easier to recover from than trying to recover from an autocratic government in three, ten, how many ever years. Make it clear to people that they rely on the government for the remarkably easy life we all enjoy. And hell, maybe I’m wrong, maybe all that government isn’t needed; maybe businesses have learned since the 1920s that they need to think about long-term reputational damage, and we don’t need food safety regulations, or environmental laws, or … . Then that’ll be all for the better.
@Eusebio: So what? The president has already made clear that’s what he wants to do. He’s illegally shutting down and attempting to destroy a number of departments that have been enacted by Congress. He’s made it clear he doesn’t care what the law is. He’s made it clear that as far as he’s concerned, the government is there to reward friends and punish enemies. How is having a government that’s opposed to democracy, and its citizens, better than not having a government?
Speaking of the (White) House of the Damned (and damnable):
With back pay.
So, they will receive payment for the time they were fired? While they weren’t producing for the American taxpayer? Sounds mighty efficient!
These Trump-MAGA-DOGE bozos have absolutely no idea what they’re doing. They need to resign now.
@Charley in Cleveland: This is my concern also. But if the largest government employees bargaining agency is saying a shutdown doesn’t make things worse, I’ll take their word for it.
F**k Main Street. They voted for this; they can have it. Laissez les bons temps roullez!
Wow! Great analogy!
Republicans hold a majority in both houses. They can pass a budget with reconciliation. They hold all the cards.
How many times have we seen Republicans play the obstruction game when Dems have the majority? And the Dems get blamed.
Turnaround is fair play. Live by the sword, die by the sword. The daily, hourly message is “Republicans have the ability to keep the government open all by themselves. Meanwhile, we don’t want to vote for a budget that does not reflect our priorities and will be ignored by the President anyway.”
Of course Republicans are going to try to blame Democrats. That’s what they always do.
@Kevin: While I’m in agreement with pretty much everything you and @al Ameda said, this topic has provided some food for thought on what may be, for me, a contrarian position.
If a government shutdown is not really a shutdown, but instead an opportunity for the administration to shut down only the parts that it doesn’t like, then is it the best option? As with levying across-the-board tariffs and then making exceptions for industries and companies that can personally benefit the president, having a government shutdown and then letting the white house decide “what parts of the government would close” could be an opening for further corruption.
And what will become of the scores of legal actions opposing the administration’s actions so far, which are working their way through the courts and just now beginning to result in positive judgments, e.g., directing that fired employees be reinstated? I agree with the concept that we can’t count of the courts to control the administration, but they are still potentially a valuable backstop.
Unfortunately, the battle was lost when voters in swing districts allowed so-called reasonable republicans, such as Lawler and Fitzpatrick in their suburban NY and Philly districts, to return to the House and give republicans the slim majority they need to control spending bills. We should know by know that they are not reasonable–they will vote MAGA every time, except for the occasional virtue signal on a bill for which their vote is of no consequence.
@Eusebio:
“If a government shutdown is not really a shutdown, but instead an opportunity for the administration to shut down only the parts that it doesn’t like, then is it the best option?”
In what way is what you are worried about different than how Elon and his Musketeers are operating now? If there is no difference, what is the downside to voting for a shutdown?
@Jay L Gischer:
Regarding reconciliation, it can only be used twice per term and the senate has plans for both those bites at the apple. Only specific items are allowed under reconciliation and the continuing resolution will contain not qualified items. It is not clear that a continuing resolution in and of itself would qualify under reconciliation. Add to that the use of reconciliation requires multiple preparatory steps that there are not time for.
@Andy:
I would love that. I hate the filibuster with the intensity of a thousand suns.
I think a lot of the problem we are in comes from the filibuster. It has rendered government unable to change, and unable to respond to the desires of the people, except during incredibly rare trifectas through reconciliation. And because of this, it has lowered the consequences of voting for lunatics who are more entertaining than useful, and made the “both sides are the same, they do nothing” crowd feel justified.
If nothing ever changes, why not vote for the one screaming about Jewish space lasers, pedophiles and porcupines? It doesn’t matter anyway.
People need consequences. That’s how they learn. I’d prefer lesser consequences than what is happening right now, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Killing the filibuster means greater feedback in the future. I’m all for it.
(And I’m sure at least some people read the porcupines and thought “what are they saying about porcupines now?” rather than assuming it was an exaggeration. I just liked the alliteration with pedophiles.)
@Gustopher:
I’m not a fan of the filibuster for many of the reasons you cite. However, the House has never had it, and it’s not exactly a well-functioning institution that responds to the people’s desires. I blame that mostly on primaries and the incentives they create.
So the Senate without the filibuster won’t be a panacea IMO, and there will likely be tradeoffs (Senators also face primary threats), but getting rid of it will likely still be a net positive.
@James Joyner:
I agree with all of this, but it doesn’t get to my point. It’s being suggested that if a shutdown happens it could provide “evidence” that those areas being shut down are unnecessary and could be cut. But this has never happened with any other government shutdown. What happens is people become aware how necessary those areas actually are. In the 2012 Republican primary, Rick Perry infamously avowed he whould shutter whole departments (Commerce, Education, and um, the third one) if he became president. He didn’t win, but it wasn’t because his views were outside the Republican mainstream. My point is that if a shutdown provided “evidence” that could be used to shutter any area of government, it would have happened already, so therefore it is unlikely that will happen this time. Trump has already shown he doesn’t actually need any “evidence” to do whatever it is he’s going to do, or claim whatever it is he’s going to claim, so he’s irrelevant to this particular concern.
@Andy:
And the House can do nothing without the Senate. The House gives the impression that lunacy is fine and harmless because for all the fire and bluster, nothing really happens.
The filibuster in the Senate enables the crazy caucus in the House to be crazy.
There was a popular belief in Mexico in the mid-late 80s about a phone company strike. the story went that the bulk of the then government-owned and sole phone company went on strike for a prolonged period, and the company carried on with the non-union employees. And the service remained pretty much as it was, as though having a majority of the workforce not working made no difference.
The gist was the whole load of unionized phone company employees were not just not essential, but not even necessary.
I don’t know if the story’s true. There were plenty of strikes by government workers all through the 70s and 80s. I haven’t been able today to find substantiation for it. And it was told at the time when there was a major push to privatize many state owned enterprises (which in general I think was a good idea then and has worked out mostly well*).
The bottom line i a lot of people believed it.
The phone company was privatized 1990. It’s still private now, and there’s a lot of competition.
*I really don’t think government ought to operate commercial enterprises. Seeing as government has a monopoly on law enforcement and coercive force, it can manipulate the markets to its benefit, and usually did.
@Sleeping Dog: I don’t give a flying fig that the Senate has other plans. They *could* pass a budget. It is their duty to pass a budget. It is within their power to pass a budget. If they put themselves in a position where there wasn’t enough time to use reconciliation, that was a choice that they made. None of this is the fault of Democrats.
If they think that shutting down the government in order to give more tax breaks to billionaires is a winning political strategy, let them try it.
So they just gave up? Schumer isn’t even going to try. Why does it feel like I’ll never get home.
@Jay L Gischer:
Unfortunately Schumer just caved.
@Beth: Had to apologize to my partner for the torrent of foul language that came tumbling out of my mouth when I saw the news just now.
Schumer is worse than useless and we desperately need new leadership that can muster at least something resembling a spine.
@Kathy:
Profoundly disappointing.
I’ve had an ongoing discussion with my Progressive friends: I’ve been saying that until Schumer steps aside for new younger leadership we are not capable of fighting this fight. They say that Schumer is experienced and we have no cards to play so this is the best we can do.
Well … Schumer just gave up … as I expected.
@Beth:
Ayup. Pretty much. (And don’t be sad about never getting home again. The only place I felt like I was “at home” for about the past 30 or so years was the 8 years I lived in Korea.)
ETA; “They say that Schumer is experienced and we have no cards to play so this is the best we can do.” Just no. That dog don’t hunt no mo’.
@Beth:
Motherfucker.
ETA: a generic “motherfucker” towards the state of things. Not even specifically suggesting Schumer has had an illegal congress with his mother. Although I don’t know he hasn’t.
There was no winning move.
@Fortune: Filibustering any CR longer than 2 weeks would have been a less worse move. With the option to do it again in two weeks.
The tools the Dems have are blunt force, but don’t give them up for 6 months. Set them aside long enough to see if the courts can reign in this lawless presidency, and then use them if needed.
It is amazing to me how fundamentally bad Democrats are at politics. Every single time they get handed a club they somehow hit themselves with it.
The irony that the only time they’ve managed to be ruthless in living memory is when they forced Biden out and ate their own. I might respond to the next request for cash, but it won’t be with money.
Imbeciles.
@Fortune:
Schumer, by giving up, gave up any possibility or hope of ‘a winning move.’
Honestly, do you really think it would have been a strategic mistake for Democrats to predicate their support of the CR, by insisting that protections for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid prgrams be part of any CR?
@Fortune:
There is never going to be a winning move if you never fight.
@Beth: There’s never going to be a winning move unless you fight and have a winning move. You can’t win without both.