The Case for Some Shutdown Urgency

The danger of the shutdown isn’t that it happened. The danger is that it continues.

National Journal
Brian Resnick
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Brian Resnick
Oct. 3, 2013, 8:37 a.m.

Here’s why the shut­down should be re­solved as quickly and com­pre­hens­ively as pos­sible.

The shut­down costs $300 mil­lion a day, $1.6 bil­lion a week.

That’s the amount ana­lyst firm IHS Glob­al In­sight es­tim­ates the shut­down is cost­ing in terms of lost eco­nom­ic out­put. Ac­cord­ing to re­search firm Mac­roe­co­nom­ic Ad­visers, a two-week shut­down would de­crease gross do­mest­ic product growth by 0.3 per­cent. Three weeks would raise that to 0.5 per­cent. A shut­down last­ing the en­tire month of Oc­to­ber would de­crease the GDP by 0.7 per­cent. Moody’s Ana­lyt­ics es­tim­ates a high­er cost, say­ing a three- or four-week shut­down will de­crease growth by 1.4 per­cent. Yes, $1.6 bil­lion a week is min­is­cule com­pared with the $16 tril­lion U.S. eco­nomy. But it will add up as the shut­down con­tin­ues.

But that de­crease in GDP could be re­covered if Con­gress votes to give fur­loughed em­ploy­ees back pay.

More than 800,000 work­ers are fur­loughed dur­ing the shut­down. But if they were to get paid for their time away from work, GDP would re­bound. “Fol­low­ing a shut­down, real com­pens­a­tion would simply re­turn to its pre­vi­ous level, tem­por­ar­ily boost­ing GDP growth by roughly the same amount that the de­cline in real com­pens­a­tion re­duced it,” Mac­roe­co­nom­ic Ad­visers ex­plains. While there is pre­ced­ent for Con­gress to give work­ers back pay after a shut­down, it’s no guar­an­tee.

If the shut­down drags on, it can take con­sumer con­fid­ence down with it.

The longer the shut­down goes on, the more un­cer­tainty arises in the eco­nomy (es­pe­cially as the debt ceil­ing ap­proaches). Con­sumer con­fid­ence is a tricky thing to pre­dict, but ana­lysts from IHS, Ox­ford Eco­nom­ics, TD Se­cur­it­ies USA, and oth­ers are all telling re­port­ers the same thing: A long shut­down could only erode con­fid­ence.

At The At­lantic, Mat­thew O’Bri­en, points out that eco­nom­ic con­fid­ence already began to drop as the shut­down be­came more likely, as seen in this chart from Gal­lup.

If the gov­ern­ment back pays its work­ers, it will be out a lot of cash. The longer the shut­down, the more money it will lose by the time it’s over.

The eco­nomy will prob­ably re­bound if the gov­ern­ment pays its work­ers for their fur­loughs — but that’s all wasted money. Es­sen­tially, the gov­ern­ment will be pay­ing for paid va­ca­tions. The Con­gres­sion­al Re­search Ser­vice, cit­ing the Of­fice of Man­age­ment and Budget, says the 28-day shut­down of 1995-96 cost the gov­ern­ment $1.4 bil­lion. And in­de­pend­ent re­search sug­gests that num­ber should be even high­er. In today’s dol­lars, that would be more than $2 bil­lion.

The shut­down also costs some money it­self, fig­ur­ing in the se­cur­ity needed to close off usu­ally open areas such as me­mori­als and na­tion­al parks, and strange pro­to­cols such as re­pla­cing a web­site with a “We’re closed” no­tice even though it may be cheap­er just to leave the site up and un-up­dated.

By try­ing to de­fund a pro­gram, Re­pub­lic­ans will be throw­ing out a lot of gov­ern­ment cash.

Open­ing the gov­ern­ment would al­low law­makers to solve the more press­ing prob­lem — the debt ceil­ing.

Treas­ury Sec­ret­ary Jac­ob Lew put in no un­cer­tain terms that the U.S. gov­ern­ment could be­gin de­fault­ing on its debts start­ing Oct. 17 if the debt ceil­ing isn’t raised. This threatens the full faith and cred­it of the coun­try and it would rattle mar­kets, in­crease in­terest rates on U.S. Treas­ury bonds, and up­set the no­tion that the U.S. eco­nomy is the most stable in the world­wide eco­nomy.

In oth­er word: Con­gress, get a move on!

What We're Following See More »
A CANDIDATE TO BE ‘PROUD’ OF
Chicago Tribune Endorses Gary Johnson
27 minutes ago
THE LATEST

No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."

FUNERAL FOR ISRAELI LEADER
Obama Compares Peres to ‘Giants of the 20th Century’
46 minutes ago
THE DETAILS

Speaking at the funeral of former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres, President Obama "compared Peres to 'other giants of the 20th century' such as Nelson Mandela and Queen Elizabeth who 'find no need to posture or traffic in what's popular in the moment.'" Among the 6,000 mourners at the service was Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Obama called Abbas's presence a sign of the "unfinished business of peace" in the region.

Source:
THE QUESTION
How Many New Voters Does the Clinton Campaign Aim to Register?
53 minutes ago
THE ANSWER

Three million—a number that lays "bare the significant gap between Donald Trump’s bare-bones operation and the field program that Clinton and her hundreds of aides have been building for some 17 months."

Source:
“STANDING FOR PRINCIPLES”
Chicago Tribune Endorses Johnson
1 hours ago
THE LATEST

In a somewhat shocking move, the Chicago Tribune has endorsed Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson for president, saying a vote for him is one that voters "can be proud of." The editorial barely touches on Donald Trump, who the paper has time and again called "unfit to be president," before offering a variety of reasons for why it can't endorse Hillary Clinton. Johnson has been in the news this week for being unable to name a single world leader who he admires, after earlier this month being unable to identify "Aleppo," a major Syrian city in the middle of the country's ongoing war.

Source:
NEVER TRUMP
USA Today Weighs in on Presidential Race for First Time Ever
14 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."

Source:
×