The common wisdom in 1995 was that Congress and the White House would not allow a government shutdown to occur. But when a deal on the budget could not be worked out, a shutdown occurred.
Weeks later, the prevailing opinion was that Congress and the president would not let a second shutdown occur. When it happened, it was generally understood that there was no way this second shutdown would be allowed to drag on through Christmas and New Year's Day, which it subsequently did. Then the popular assumption was that there was no way Congress would leave Washington for its customary holiday recess while the government was closed. It went.
This is the backdrop for the struggle over the budget that will occur when Congress reconvenes after Labor Day. The same common wisdom, prevailing opinions, and popular assumptions that up to now have been completely wrong about the budget endgame are all saying unequivocally that a shutdown is not possible this year.
Once again, that may not necessarily be the case.
The assumption that there will not be a shutdown this year is based on the notion that the political ramifications of the 1995 and 1996 shutdowns for the Republican majority in Congress were so negative that they cannot possibly allow another to occur this year. In fact, where a shutdown was considered by many as a viable or perhaps even attractive alternative back then, it is seldom, if ever, talked about these days as anything but a Kamikaze strategy. House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, R-Texas, has even been quoted as effectively saying that Congress will pass a continuing resolution for the full year that will keep all programs at their fiscal 1999 spending level if there is no agreement with the White House by the start of fiscal 2000.
Statements like these make it seem as if a shutdown will be impossible. But if you look closely, it is not hard to see how the common wisdom could again be completely wrong.
First, the fact that the 1995 and 1996 shutdowns happened more or less on purpose and according to a plan does not mean that another strategic decision has to be made for it to happen this time. A shutdown could also happen more or less unintentionally if the majority is split and its members cannot agree on how best to deal with, for example, a recalcitrant or uncooperative White House.
Second, the majority in the House is far smaller now than it was in 1995 and 1996. If the Democrats remain as united as they have been so far this year on most budget votes, it would take no more then a handful of dogmatic or ideological Republicans to create havoc. For example, farm state representatives could hold out for more aid to farmers, anti-abortion advocates could demand certain changes in a variety of programs, or spending-cut proponents could insist that spending be trimmed beyond the 1999 levels.
A move to do any of these would probably cost the leadership as many votes as it would gain by moving to appease the group. More spending on agriculture might force an anti-spending group that previously was supporting the bill to oppose it. Or the addition of anti-abortion language might force moderates to drop their support.
Third, the Republican congressional majority does not have as forceful, well known, powerful or charismatic a leader now as it did back in 1995 and 1996 when Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., was in the speaker's chair. This means that some members may be more likely to follow an independent course and are less likely to fear retribution than they might have a few years ago.
Finally, what makes anyone think that Bill Clinton will sign a full-year continuing resolution that keeps all programs at their fiscal 1999 levels? While this might fund programs at higher levels than they would receive if Congress moved ahead with the regular appropriations, in many cases it would still be below what the president proposed in his budget.
The funding levels in a continuing resolution would give the president the upper hand especially (1) when they would be for education, environment, health care, and possibly the Pentagon and (2) when the administration could claim that its budget would have funded these programs at higher levels without breaching the caps. (The fact that the administration relied on a number of gimmicks and policies that Congress has no intention of adopting to keep spending below the caps-like tobacco taxes-will get lost in the clutter).
It is important to note that many in Congress were so burned by the last shutdowns that they will do almost anything to prevent a repeat. To avoid the political repercussions that occurred back then, they may gladly sacrifice their ideology to prevent a funding gap. That is why, unlike 1995, no one from Capitol Hill is going on talk shows saying that if the president does not agree to their demands, they will shut down the government and see if anyone notices.
This means the common wisdom this year about the improbability of a shutdown ultimately could end up being correct. But if a shutdown is avoided, it may be far more a case of capitulation than accommodation.
Question Of The Week
Last Week's Question. Last week's column provided seven rules for judging the rest of the fiscal 2000 budget debate, and the Question of the Week asked readers to suggest other possibilities. The many very high quality answers made it difficult to pick one, so the four winners of an "I Won A Budget Battle" T-shirt are:
- Gary Blank, legislative assistant to Rep. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., for his rule, "FY99 emergency spending should not be included in the baseline merely to make an appropriation for FY2000 look like a larger cut or less of an increase;"
- Debra Warner, who works at the Department of Agriculture in Louisiana, who proposed that "Reduction in the 'size' of the federal government should be based upon reductions in actual costs not in the number of federal employees;"
- Tim Vandenberg of the Congressional Budget Office, who declared that "Revenue from the sale of government assets should be estimated conservatively;" and
- David Norquist of the House Appropriations Committee, who suggested a rule saying "A cut is when a program gets less money for FY2000 than it received for FY99 (plus inflation)."
This Week's Question. Countries and states have them, why not the federal budget? Which real or fictional animal should be "the official animal" of the federal budget? Send your response to scollender@njdc.com and you could win an "I Won A Budget Battle" T-shirt to wear while bird watching.