What Would Happen If the Federal Government Closed?
Published in El Mundo
(Spain) on 4 March 2011
by Ricard González (link to original)
(Spain) on 4 March 2011
by Ricard González (link to original)
Translated from
by Anned Vargas.
Edited by Mark DeLucas.
Even though the United States fiscal year begins in September, last year Congress was only able to approve a budget for half the year, a period which ended March 4.
As a consequence, the approval of a new law which assigned funds for the second half of the fiscal year became necessary to continue functioning with normality.
Facing disagreement between Republicans and Democrats about the budget’s amount, and the risk that government would have to close its doors due to a lack of funds, the leaders of both parties achieved an in extremis agreement to finance the executive a couple weeks more. They opted to gain time so that both parties could continue negotiating the new budget.
If the pact does not happen within the next few days, the situation that occurred during the Clinton presidency would repeat itself, when there was a “federal shutdown” between Dec. 16, 1995, and Jan. 6, 1996. That episode may serve as reference to us for what could happen this time if the flow of finances to the government ceased.
Out of the 4.4 million federal functionaries, those who were considered “disposable” would be prohibited from coming to work. It has been calculated that in this category are many hundreds of thousands of employees and also thousands of consultants and workers from hiring corporations. Even though during the last “shutdown” they stopped receiving their paycheck, afterward they were repaid their lost salaries.
All of the basic services that the government realizes would continue operating. For example, the shutdown would not affect the Pentagon, nor the emergency hospital units, nor air traffic control. Federal police agents would also not abandon their posts, nor the people in charge of transferring pensions to the retired population.
To the disgrace of tourists, the parks and national museums would remain closed, as well as some bureaucratic type of services. For example, in 1995, there was a halt in the process for the renewal of passports, which signified a substantial setback for some 200,000 applicants.
Likewise, the process to obtain permits for import and export could also suffer important setbacks; the same could happen with the applications for benefits by veterans, the handicapped, or people with social exclusion problems.
There are various factors that can push the leaders of both parties to an agreement. To start, according to surveys, most of the population does not want to see a new “shutdown.” Besides, the Republicans know that the public opinion blamed them for the shutdown in 1995, which favored Bill Clinton’s reelection.
The Democrats, on the other hand, also have incentives to reach an agreement, because even though they were winners 15 years ago, the situation now is not so favorable. The deficit is much larger than before, and the population perceives it as a more grave and urgent problem than it was in 1995. Besides, conservative media communications, with Fox News heading them, are a lot stronger than they were earlier.
Now, even though congressional leaders wish to reach an agreement, there is no guarantee that they will get one, seeing as, especially on the Republican side, they are not capable of controlling the votes of their affiliates. The new series of conservatives which entered the Representatives chamber in November, many of them affiliated with the tea party, have already demonstrated their rebelliousness in various votes and seem to be little willing to compromise on the main axis of their elective campaign: a drastic cut in public spending.
As a consequence, the approval of a new law which assigned funds for the second half of the fiscal year became necessary to continue functioning with normality.
Facing disagreement between Republicans and Democrats about the budget’s amount, and the risk that government would have to close its doors due to a lack of funds, the leaders of both parties achieved an in extremis agreement to finance the executive a couple weeks more. They opted to gain time so that both parties could continue negotiating the new budget.
If the pact does not happen within the next few days, the situation that occurred during the Clinton presidency would repeat itself, when there was a “federal shutdown” between Dec. 16, 1995, and Jan. 6, 1996. That episode may serve as reference to us for what could happen this time if the flow of finances to the government ceased.
Out of the 4.4 million federal functionaries, those who were considered “disposable” would be prohibited from coming to work. It has been calculated that in this category are many hundreds of thousands of employees and also thousands of consultants and workers from hiring corporations. Even though during the last “shutdown” they stopped receiving their paycheck, afterward they were repaid their lost salaries.
All of the basic services that the government realizes would continue operating. For example, the shutdown would not affect the Pentagon, nor the emergency hospital units, nor air traffic control. Federal police agents would also not abandon their posts, nor the people in charge of transferring pensions to the retired population.
To the disgrace of tourists, the parks and national museums would remain closed, as well as some bureaucratic type of services. For example, in 1995, there was a halt in the process for the renewal of passports, which signified a substantial setback for some 200,000 applicants.
Likewise, the process to obtain permits for import and export could also suffer important setbacks; the same could happen with the applications for benefits by veterans, the handicapped, or people with social exclusion problems.
There are various factors that can push the leaders of both parties to an agreement. To start, according to surveys, most of the population does not want to see a new “shutdown.” Besides, the Republicans know that the public opinion blamed them for the shutdown in 1995, which favored Bill Clinton’s reelection.
The Democrats, on the other hand, also have incentives to reach an agreement, because even though they were winners 15 years ago, the situation now is not so favorable. The deficit is much larger than before, and the population perceives it as a more grave and urgent problem than it was in 1995. Besides, conservative media communications, with Fox News heading them, are a lot stronger than they were earlier.
Now, even though congressional leaders wish to reach an agreement, there is no guarantee that they will get one, seeing as, especially on the Republican side, they are not capable of controlling the votes of their affiliates. The new series of conservatives which entered the Representatives chamber in November, many of them affiliated with the tea party, have already demonstrated their rebelliousness in various votes and seem to be little willing to compromise on the main axis of their elective campaign: a drastic cut in public spending.