Federal workers struggle without pay as long shutdown begins to affect more Americans

Key Concepts

• Government Shutdown: A situation where non-essential government operations cease due to a failure of Congress to pass appropriations bills.
• Furloughed Federal Workers: Government employees who are temporarily unpaid and not allowed to work during a shutdown.
• Continuing Resolution (CR): A temporary funding measure that allows government operations to continue when appropriations bills have not been enacted by the deadline.
• Legislative Filibuster: A procedural tactic in the U.S. Senate that allows a minority of senators to delay or block a vote on a bill or other measure.
• Appropriations Bills: Legislation that authorizes the government to spend money.
• SNAP Benefits: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, a federal program that provides food assistance to low-income Americans.
• USAID: United States Agency for International Development, a federal agency responsible for administering foreign aid.
• Workfare: A program that requires recipients of public assistance to work in exchange for benefits.
• Balanced Budget: A budget where government revenues equal government expenditures.

Impact of the Government Shutdown

The government shutdown, now in its 33rd day, is beginning to have tangible effects on Americans. Payments for federal food programs, such as SNAP, are in doubt, and court orders have not guaranteed their continuity. Low-income Americans may face delays in receiving federal payments intended to help with heating and cooling costs. The air traffic control system is showing signs of strain as the holiday travel season approaches.

Approximately 650,000 federal workers are being notified to stay home without pay. Many are experiencing financial hardship, with some visiting food banks for the first time. Examples include:

• Anthony: A federal employee who has never needed to visit a food bank before but now finds himself in that situation due to the shutdown.
• Amy Ucello: A former USAID worker who was "fired" earlier in the year when the agency was eliminated. She is now struggling to make ends meet, with her unemployment benefits having run out, and is actively seeking new employment.
• Isaac Stein: A furloughed IRS lawyer who has turned his side hustle of selling hot dogs into a temporary full-time job. He emphasizes his desire to return to his regular job.

Organizations like World Central Kitchen, known for disaster relief, are stepping in to provide food aid in Washington D.C. due to the shutdown impacting programs like SNAP.

Political Stalemate and Lack of Negotiation

Jeremy Mayer, Director of the Political Science Master's Program at George Mason University, highlights a distinctive feature of this shutdown: the lack of negotiations. Unlike previous shutdowns where there were shifting positions and discussions between the President and Congress, this shutdown has seen a firm stance from both sides with no active negotiation.

• Democratic Position: Democrats have stated they will not vote to reopen the government until Republicans agree to restore cuts to Medicaid and extend subsidies for health insurance premiums.
• Republican Position: Republicans, aligned with President Trump, are demanding no negotiation until the government reopens.

Mayer attributes this lack of negotiation to extreme political polarization. Republicans are seen as answerable to President Trump, and Democrats are increasingly viewed as "evil" by the Republican base, with fewer moderates pressuring for a deal.

Unusual Executive Actions

The administration's approach of "picking and choosing" which programs to favor and which people to pay is described as very unusual and of questionable legality. Mayer notes that this administration has been doing this since its inauguration, effectively shutting down agencies like USAID and the Department of Education. He states that no prior president has asserted the ability to shut down entire agencies.

The Legislative Filibuster Debate

President Trump is pushing to eliminate the Senate legislative filibuster as a means to reopen the government, urging Republicans to "Fight, fight, fight, win, win, win." Senate Majority Leader John Thune, however, wishes to preserve the filibuster, viewing it as a "bulwark against a lot of really bad things happening with the country."

• Traditional View: Traditionalists in both parties have historically valued the filibuster as a key difference between the Senate and the House, and a long-standing Senate tradition since 1802.
• Radical View: More radical members of both Democratic and Republican caucuses desire to eliminate the filibuster because it is the only mechanism that allows for significant legislative change to be passed.

Historical Precedents of Shutdowns and Policy Changes

The question of whether policy changes have been won through government shutdowns as leverage is addressed:

• 1995 Shutdown: Considered a significant event. While President Clinton "won" politically by appearing as the responsible adult, Republicans achieved policy wins on "Workfare" and a "balanced budget."
• 2018 Shutdown (Trump): President Trump demanded a border wall and refused to open the government for 35 days. Ultimately, he "crumbled," and the border wall was not built.

Mayer concludes that shutdowns are becoming a common, albeit terrible, tactic in political disagreements, causing suffering for workers and negatively impacting government morale and efficiency for months to come. He likens a shutdown to an "induced coma" for the government, with actual death being the only worse outcome.

Potential Resolution and Political Victory

Given the current situation, Mayer believes President Trump is likely to "win" this stalemate. He suggests Trump could end the shutdown by having the Justice Department reinterpret a 100-year-old law, allowing him to declare an end to it. This mirrors a historical precedent where, from 1884 to 1980, continuing resolutions were automatically in effect when Congress failed to pass bills on time. However, in 1980, Carter's Attorney General reinterpreted a law, leading to the modern era of shutdowns.

Mayer posits that this approach would allow Trump to appear as a hero who reopened the government unilaterally, without needing to negotiate with Democrats, thus achieving a short-term political victory.