The "deal" President Trump announced to temporarily end the longest government shutdown in US history was no deal at all. But given the suffering his shutdown continues to cause for so many, there are no winners here.
Advertisement
Image: Getty Images/AFP/B. Smialowski
It took US President Donald Trump 35 days to sign off on a bill that he could have had before Christmas. Before the president walked away from negotiations in December, a similar agreement was on the table to temporarily fund the government, but not Trump's beloved boondoggle, a border wall. Back then, the dealmaker-in-chief boasted in an Oval Office meeting that he would be "proud to shut down the government" if he did not get funding for his wall.
Finally, more than a month into the shutdown, he has announced a deal that Democrats had been offering from the beginning: Decouple government and wall funding for a brief period while negotiating about border security. Trump had consistently balked at the idea — until he didn't, and suddenly caved on Friday.
For some of his detractors, it may be enticing to gloat about the self-declared "world's best negotiator" and his failure to get funding for his border wall. But doing so would be highly inappropriate in light of the unnecessary pain he has caused for so many people during the longest government shutdown in US history.
Trump's reckless triggering of the shutdown just before Christmas meant that 800,000 government workers and their families have had to make ends meet while going without pay for over a month. Not to mention the more than 1 million government contractors who went unpaid — and who, unlike the government workers, will not receive any back pay.
To this day, Trump and billionaire Cabinet members like Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross still fail to grasp how devastating their frivolous exercise was for the many low-earning government employees and contractors and their families, many of whom have been forced to turn to food pantries and look for additional jobs to make ends meet — often while being forced to report for duty without pay.
The longer Trump's shutdown lasted, the more it endangered countless millions through numerous aspects of everyday life. To name but a few: food safety and security, customs inspections, air travel safety, and thus overall national security — the very thing Trump claimed to be boosting by his dogged insistence on the construction of a border wall.
Let's also remember that Trump's shutdown antics dealt another severe blow to the already shaky notion that a government position, while generally lower paying than a private sector job, provides at least a more reliable source of income.
So the millions affected now find themselves with a temporary fix — with the next possible shutdown looming only three weeks away. But this is nothing new for Trump, a man who, throughout his career, has readily toyed with others' money and well-being if it furthered his own profits.
President Joe Biden's government is facing a shutdown if the Republican Congress doesn't approve the budget for the coming fiscal year. DW looks at how shutdowns started, when they became partisan and how much they cost.
Image: Getty Images/D. Angerer
Sundown shutdown
As midnight approaches on September 30, it's go time for Congress: Approve a budget before the start of the new fiscal year on October 1, or shut down the government. Originally, Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution required lawmakers to approve the budget. Honing it further in 1870, the Antideficiency Act targeted agencies that spent money without asking. But deadlines were often missed.
Image: picture-alliance/CNP/A. Edelma
No money, no pay, no work
At the behest of President Jimmy Carter, the US attorney general revisited the Antideficiency Act in 1980 to answer the question: "Without a budget, are government employees required to work?" According to his Attorney General's legal opinion, no money meant no work. Carter's presidency saw only small shutdowns, but the new interpretation of the law turned shutdowns into a negotiating tactic.
Image: picture alliance / Everett Collection
Ronald Reagan and the first shutdown
The first real shutdown — more than 240,000 workers furloughed, more than $80 million (€65 million) down the drain — occurred in November 1981. President Ronald Reagan refused to sign a budget without billions in tax cuts. The Republican-controlled Senate and the Democrat-controlled House found a solution the next day. This happened seven more times by his last year in 1989.
Image: AP
Bill Clinton and the rise of the partisan shutdown
Budget impasses were largely drama-free until 1995, when President Bill Clinton faced off against Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole and House Speaker Newt Gingrich (pictured left). The Republican-led Congress wanted a balanced budget within seven years, higher Medicare premiums and rollbacks on environment regulations. It took 27 days in total to strike a deal. The cost: at least $1 billion.
Image: POOL/AFP/Getty Images
A game for Congress, a headache for the agencies
Many departments such as the military, national security and any deemed essential to the protection of life continue working during shutdowns. But agencies such as the Internal Revenue Service, the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention must cease operations. This results in delays on tax decisions, food inspection and disease research among other problems.
Image: picture-alliance/BSIP/B. Boissonet
Barack Obama and Congress on Cruz-control
The next major shutdown came in 2013 under President Barack Obama. His Affordable Health Care Act — or Obamacare — faced stark opposition from conservative House Republicans. Led by Senator Ted Cruz, the group pushed for drastic curbs on the health care act in exchange for raising the debt ceiling. The 18-day shutdown resulted in the furlough of some 850,000 workers. The cost: $24 billion.
Image: picture-alliance/AP Photo/C. Dharapak
Shutdown for a wall
The longest shutdown in US history so far lasted 35 days in December 2018 and January 2019. Hundreds of federal workers went without paychecks. Despite the disruption, then-President Donald Trump insisted that funding for his Mexico border wall be included in the budget. In fact, Trump had said he was prepared for the impasse to go on for years — before he gave in and reopened government.
Image: Doug Mills/UPI Photo/Imago Images
Cost of playing politics
The prohibitive cost of shutting down some government operations has not tamed the trend. Washington loses millions not just in revenue, but also in back pay, even though furloughed employees stay at home. So, time lost, work lost — and money lost. According to a 2019 estimate by ratings agency Standard and Poor's, a government shutdown costs the US roughly $6 billion per week.
Image: Imago
Shutdowns contributing to distrust?
The biggest loser is not the economy, or the party that makes the most concessions, it's the government itself. According to a Gallup poll in the aftermath of the 2013 shutdown, public dissatisfaction with the government in general rose to 33%. The previous all-time high regarding political dysfunction was 26% during the Watergate scandal.
Image: picture-alliance/dpa/C. Kaster
9 images1 | 9
Gambling with other people's lives
One could speculate now what caused Trump to cave — the canceled State of the Union address, the impending collapse of air travel in key US cities, or simply a move to deflect from the indictment of his buddy Roger Stone, his shrinking approval ratings, pressure from GOP lawmakers — or all of it combined. But it is an exercise in futility; no one really knows Trump's mind.
Instead, let's take this short-term reprieve to thank all the government employees who have suffered through this shutdown for their dedication to keeping the country going, despite the president's antics.
Let's hope — if there could possibly be a positive long-term consequence of this shutdown — that Americans, especially those directly affected by it, remember who claimed he would be proud to shut the government down.
Let's hope that Americans remember the callous and cruel president who would readily gamble with other people's lives and livelihoods for a pointless border wall he ultimately didn't even get. Is there a more damning character indictment?
