The Politics of the Government Shutdown

Real Clear Politics ^ | October 1, 2013 | Sean Trende

[neverdem]

With the government having lurched into its first shutdown since the 1990s, many commentators are focusing on the potential ill effects that it might have for Republicans. Almost all of these analyses use the shutdowns of 1995-1996 as their starting point. While I don't think this development will be great for Republicans, many of the concerns are likely overwrought. Here are four points to ponder:

1. While the GOP’s tactics are similar to those employed in the mid-’90s, the goals are different. The earlier budget debates were broad in nature and dealt with the scope of government. The 104th Congress, led by Newt Gingrich, believed that they were the culmination of the realignment supposedly begun by Ronald Reagan, that Bill Clinton’s election was a fluke caused by Ross Perot’s candidacy, and that they had been elected with a mandate to shrink the size and scope of government dramatically.

They entered the shutdown believing that the public would rally to their side, that Clinton’s job approval would fall in the wake of the shutdown, and that he would ultimately cave on their demands. Despite the lore that has since sprung up, this wasn’t a completely harebrained view of the underlying politics: An earlier shutdown, in 1990, did play an important role in persuading George H.W. Bush to abandon his famous “no new taxes” pledge a few weeks later.

Of course, that isn’t how it played out at all in 1995 and 1996; Bill Clinton was widely viewed as having held the line against the Republican onslaught, although he actually did give substantial ground on taxes and a number of other issues...

[combat_boots]

I keep seeing the wrong word. I see shakedown.

[fireman15]

In other words the Republicans in Congress forced Klinton to reduce the amount of government growth which allowed the economy to expand. If the Republicans in the house are able to slow the rate of government growth again... our economy will actually begin to recover and of course Obama will take the credit. It is the same as Obama taking credit for the increase in domestic oil and natural gas production when all of his policies are designed to curtail production.

[NotTallTex]

Yes, Clinton did and still does take credit for the two things that propelled the economy during his tenure: the explosion of prosperity that followed the budget cuts imposed by the new Republican Congress, and the explosion of technology and worker productivity due to the computer revolution; both of which he had nothing to do with, and that happened in spite of him.

[fireman15]

There is always something... we probably shouldn't expect another explosion in technology and worker productivity. The only explosion we have had lately are government regulations and restrictions from the EPA and other federal and state bureaucracies to mucking up energy production and the business environment.

Then there are all of the negative incentives from Obamacare regs forcing any business with 50 or more employees to cut peoples schedules back to 29 hours a week. Not to mention the negative incentive to keep small businesses, the real job creators in any recovery from hiring more than 49 employees.

Last year when I checked what it was going to cost for my wife and I to have a decent health plan after I retired it was going to be approximately half what it is going to cost me this year. That has got to have a negative impact on consumer spending. Has there ever been a more poorly conceived piece of legislation?

[jeffc]

Has anyone done an analysis of any damage this could have on the Dems, or does no one believe this could ever hurt the Zero King and his merry band of lunatic followers?