February Column: An Explanation of "Government Shutdowns"

Op-Ed

There's been a lot of talk recently in political circles about a possible government "shutdown." I thought it would be a good idea to explain what is really going on, why we are even discussing a shutdown, and what that means for you.

What a "government shutdown" is…and is not:

A "government shutdown" is a closure of some government agencies, caused by the lack of legal authority to pay for those agencies to stay open. The key word is "some" government agencies, because despite what you might have heard, the entire government does not cease doing business during a shutdown.

So, national museums and national parks don't open, and Census reporting may be delayed. But a shutdown does not mean that FBI Agents can't arrest criminals, Social Security employees can't send checks out, and military personnel are pulled from the front lines. All those folks, and thousands more, are considered "essential personnel," and they go to work just like normal.

In fact, not only does the mail get delivered during a government shutdown, but some agencies can bring folks back to work if they fall behind in providing core services. The best example of this comes from the last long-term shutdown (21 days from Dec. 16, 1995, to Jan. 6, 1996) when the Social Security Administration kept sending benefit checks, but they fell behind in the processing of new claims. So, they brought many employees back in to help catch up.

But while a government shutdown isn't the end of the world, it certainly isn't an ideal situation. A shutdown can end up costing taxpayers more money in the long run if employees have to stay overtime to catch up on work, or if contract payments aren't made on time.

How did we get here?

When things work the way they are supposed to in Washington, Congress passes a budget (setting the government spending limits) and then passes various appropriation bills (that actually spend money.) However, the last Congress didn't write a budget or pass any appropriations bills. Instead, it passed several short-term government-funding bills known as Continuing Resolutions. The last one of those funded the government through March 4.

In order to keep the government operating for the rest of this year, the House passed a bill that would keep the government running but also cut spending by $61 billion. Unfortunately, Democrat Leaders in the Senate rejected this proposal without a vote and are supporting a bill that keeps government spending at the same levels.

So, to make a long story short, a "government shutdown" is possible because the House and Senate disagree about how much money the government should spend between now and the end of the fiscal year -- September 30. But normally, all this would have been done a year ago.

Why is any of this an issue?

Quite simply: because we are spending too much money. I can (and will) go into much more detail on our budget situation in future columns, but for now the summary is that we have been spending a bunch of money we don't have for many, many years. And some of us in the government think that has to stop. And we want to begin reducing spending now. That means not funding government at the same levels as last year, when our national deficit was about $1,500,000,000,000.

What happens next?

As I am writing this, the Congress and the President agreed on how to fund the government through March 18. In doing so, we all agreed on saving $4 billion over those two weeks. The deal also gives us more time to negotiate a compromise on funding for the rest of the year.

Rest assured, the House will continue propose plans that 1) save taxpayers' money and 2) keeps the government open. Whether the Senate and the President want to go down that path will then be up to them.

The bottom line is this: a government shutdown doesn't actually mean the government shuts down, but the fact that we are coming so close does mean that some folks in Congress still haven't gotten the message that we need to cut spending now. Indeed, too many of the so-called "Washington insiders" just don't seem to understand that our nation is in a crisis, and that if we don't start cutting spending now, our national debt will do us in as a nation. And it looks like getting the message across to those folks will be a top priority for a long time to come.

Source