OPINION:
As Congress stumbles toward yet another momentary delay in the federal government’s march to consume all, the usual suspects are either waxing poetic about the rare and incredibly damaging nature of the partial and temporary — likely to be very partial and very temporary — cessation of some marginal federal programs, or they are working their worry beads about the political consequences of the “shutdown” for whichever party is viewed as responsible.
Partial and temporary cessation of some federal programs is by now routine. Since the passage of the misguided and disastrous Budget and Impoundment Act of 1974, parts of the federal government have shut down 20 times, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. That’s a shade less than once per Congress.
It is routine enough that it barely registers on the national consciousness, despite the loud and insistent drumbeat of the legacy media, which, of course, believe that Americans will punish Republicans for whatever temporary hiccups there may be.
For instance, recent polls from places such as Emerson and Gallup indicate that voters believe the most important issues facing the nation remain the economy (31% in the recent Gallup survey, 40% in the recent Emerson survey), health care, immigration, etc. Hardly anyone indicated that a partial stop of some government programs was among the most important challenges facing the American republic.
The reality is that most voters don’t care because, for most people, the federal government is, as President Ronald Reagan liked to say, “like a baby: an alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.”
With respect to political consequences, whatever you may have heard about shutdowns causing political parties epic and terrible electoral losses, the actual record is no better than mixed.
For instance, in 1984, despite four shutdowns, Reagan somehow managed to scrape by to reelection, and the Republicans netted 14 seats in the House. In 1996, which saw two shutdowns, President Bill Clinton barely defeated a fading Sen. Robert Dole but netted only three seats in the House and lost two in the Senate. In 2014, despite one shutdown, the Republicans managed to net 13 seats in the House and nine in the Senate.
Finally, it is probably important to understand the size and scope of a shutdown. The Mercatus Center has estimated that less than 20% of federal government activities are affected by shutdowns. That means that 80% of the federal government goes on its merry way.
As for federal employees, they understand that a cessation of some programs essentially means more paid days off (back pay is always covered in whatever deal ends the spending standoff).
For those of you who worry that the tax man might take a day off, the good news is that as a result of the Inflation Reduction Act, IRS operations will continue unimpaired, and all 83,000 employees will be exempt from furlough in the event of a government slowdown.
It is impossible to think that closing portions of the federal government, even temporarily, without a specific plan is a good idea. It is also impossible to think of a temporary cessation of some federal programs as an apocalyptic moment.
Voters have seen all this before and understand these “shutdowns” for what they are — political kabuki that are modest disturbances in the otherwise uninterrupted march of the federal leviathan to devour all of the substance of the nation and her people.
• Michael McKenna, a columnist for The Washington Times, is the president of MWR Strategies. He was most recently a deputy assistant to the president and deputy director of the Office of Legislative Affairs at the White House. He can be reached at mike@mwrstrat.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.