The Congress did not comply with the deadline of October 1 to adopt an expense measure and keep the federal government open, which resulted in the first closure of the government in almost seven years. With Democrats and Republicans apparently prepared for a long struggle, Alfonso Serrano, the conversation’s policy editor, interviewed Charlie Hunt, an expert at the Congress of the State University of Boise, about the perspectives of a commitment and what is at stake for both parties.
Both sides seem to be entrenched. Do you see a path to a quick commitment?
Not at this time. The Democrats made clear at least their declared friction point: these medical care subsidies that will expire at the end of this year and that were part of Obamacare’s legislation. Politically speaking, this is part of a broader tactic of going back and finally having some influence point against the Trump administration. Democrats will use this moment to get attention to what they see as abuses in the administration.
There were a series of incidents such as the show in the Department of Defense (on September 30), the use of the military in the cities and many of the other uses or abuses of the Department of Justice or the Trump Administration. Although all of them are technically separated from the subject of closure, it is impossible to talk about the strategy of the Democrats without referring to them as things for which many people on the left are really annoying. And this is a vehicle by which Democrats can get back politically and really use part of their power to stop the impulse and draw attention to what the administration is doing.
But on the Republican side of things, they have a fairly simple argument, which they want to continue financing the government at current levels and the Democrats do not. Until those dynamics change, or until enough Democratic senators get nervous about the optics of what is happening, no, I don’t see a way out.
How does the power of the White House affect public spending, in the form of seizure, negotiations?
The seizure process is basically the executive branch that refuses to spend the money that Congress has assigned. Technically speaking, that is not legal under the law of seizure that was approved after Richard Nixon practiced this method in the 1970s. If you are the Democrats and are trying to negotiate some type of expense, for example, in these medical care subsidies, and say that you win a concession of the Republicans, then the Democrats could rightly say:
“Why would we agree with this when we believe that there is the possibility that these funds that we are appropriating for these subsidies are seized? Or will you simply have another termination package and the congress led by the Republicans, with a simple majority, will simply recover these funds? And then we have not won any concession.”
You may be interested: UU dismissals fall in September, but the hiring scheduled for the date is the lowest in 16 years
Who are the key actors and the groups of senators and representatives who could decide how much this closure lasts?
There are people like Republican Senator Rand Paul, who are a kind of wing of the Tea Party or Freedom Caucus, who want to see less public spending in general and, in principle, tend to oppose these continuous resolutions. He was the only Republican who voted against the Project of Republican Law last night. I have the feeling that if the Republicans as the leader of the majority of the Senate, John Thune, manages to take off some more Democrats, and Rand Paul ends up being the decisive vote, they could get it to join to approve this package.
In terms of the Senate, the true conflicting points are the Democrats. There is an increasing number of moderate Democrats who could end up joining Republicans in future votes to approve their expense bill. (You have) John Fetterman, from Pennsylvania, who has been a wild card for the Democrats since he assumed the position in 2023. Then you have other more moderate Democrats of intermediate states. People like Catherine Cortez Masto in Nevada and others from states such as Arizona or Pennsylvania, or maybe Wisconsin. But, for the most part, the Democrats maintained the line.
For me, at the end of the day, it is a matter of how much leadership in these two games can keep their caucus together. I think that both Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic leaders in the Senate and the House of Representatives, respectively, have faced a lot of criticism of the Democratic voters, who made it very clear that their strategy the last time was not something that the left supported. So I think this time there is much more political pressure on them. And (Schumer and Jeffries) will use that pressure much more with the members of their caucus than the last time.
What party can lose more with the political reaction of government closure?
It is perfectly possible that we end up having this fight and there are no winners. Many times in these negotiations it ends up being who can save the face more. Who can get away from the fight without having lost the respect of their own followers.
I have the feeling that most Democratic senators understand that Republicans will not suddenly yield in these medical care subsidies, or that Donald Trump will suddenly say: “You know what, you are right. We should not use the army in US cities.” Or that (the director of the Office of Administration and Budget) Russell Vought suddenly will say: “You are right. The Executive Power should really stop confiscating funds and we will only give them what they want.” The Democrats understand it, but they are trying to demonstrate to their voters that they are going to do some kind of struggle and use any small influence they have.
I think there are more on a political basis for Democrats to lose only depending on their ideological principles. There are many Republicans who, frankly, are happy to see the closure of the Government, to show the American people to “hear, look, you do not need so much government, you can get yours with less, this is a good opportunity perhaps to cut a lot of government programs, make massive federal dismissals of federal workers, as the director of the OMB has suggested.” While Democrats favor more solid social security programs and more government spending to achieve their objectives.
So, the longer the government remains closed, the less funds they will receive those programs. In that sense, Democrats have more to lose. On the other hand, Republicans can lose a lot in terms of public relations due to who leads their party.
I think Donald Trump demonstrated on the last closure, in 2018-2019, which has many difficulties not to make these fights focus on him, at least from a public perspective. That does not tend to go to him because he is a pretty unpopular president, because he tends to bite more than he can chew in fights like these. And that is something that Democrats can use in their favor from a public relations or communications perspective, in terms of talking with their voters.
But the question will be: how much of that is the losses that will be incurred if we are talking about a government that is closed for weeks or even months? That will be a lot of pain for Americans. Then it’s who ends up receiving guilt. And I don’t think we know enough.
*Charlie Hunt is an associate professor of Political Science at the State University of Boise.
This article was originally published in The Conversation
Do you use more Facebook? Follow us to always be informed
