Why exactly are these "must pass" bills? This seems to be an implicit value judgment that even a horrible bill is better than inaction. From a game theory standpoint this does not seem to be necessarily true. The partisan impact of shutdowns/debt ceiling showdowns historically is mixed at worst for Republicans in my opinion.
The Republicans arguably benefitted from the long shutdown in the mid-90s. Clinton basically caved and passed welfare reform. The brinksmanship during the Obama administration won the Republicans the Budget Control Act. While Trump did not win his border wall during his first term shutdown the costly signalling of enabling the shutdown reinforced his immigration hardliner bonafides with the public and might have helped him get reelected in 2024.
If anything the Republicans have an incentive to play even harder ball on the shutdown negotiations. The fact that the GOP leadership now almost always caves to the Democrats' key demands gives credence to the "RINO" charge.
The vast majority of the federal government bureaucrats who would face the financial pain of potential furloughs during a lengthy shutdown are urban, college educated Democrats (the antithesis of the Republican base). A sizable portion of the Republican base despises the federal government and would love nothing more than to see it shuttered and to revel in the schadenfraude of the bureaucrats they blame for their declining standard of living themselves face financial precarity and the spectre of potential unemployment. This should give the GOP establishment negotiators "good cop/bad cop" leverage, but they perenially refuse to use it.
I mean, they are considered "must-pass" because eventually they have to pass, or the government doesn't exist. It has nothing to do with shutdowns---they might be good strategy for one or both parties! But even if you have a shutdown, the bills eventually have to pass.
The vast majority (75%) of the 2.25 million civilian federal employees work in national security (DoD, DHS, etc.) or law enforcement capacities. That doesn't count the 1.5 million uniformed military personnel. It is true that many people despise the "bureacrats," but many of those haters have a very skewed view of the typical federal employee, which is someone who works at DoD. Part of the problem, politically, with shutdowns is that the pain disproportionately falls on military families.
But again, that doesn't make it bad strategy. It might be the right course of action!
Excellent post, and regarding your very last point, I don't get the sense that Dems are talking enough right now about abolishing the debt limit. I wish I knew why.
Why exactly are these "must pass" bills? This seems to be an implicit value judgment that even a horrible bill is better than inaction. From a game theory standpoint this does not seem to be necessarily true. The partisan impact of shutdowns/debt ceiling showdowns historically is mixed at worst for Republicans in my opinion.
The Republicans arguably benefitted from the long shutdown in the mid-90s. Clinton basically caved and passed welfare reform. The brinksmanship during the Obama administration won the Republicans the Budget Control Act. While Trump did not win his border wall during his first term shutdown the costly signalling of enabling the shutdown reinforced his immigration hardliner bonafides with the public and might have helped him get reelected in 2024.
If anything the Republicans have an incentive to play even harder ball on the shutdown negotiations. The fact that the GOP leadership now almost always caves to the Democrats' key demands gives credence to the "RINO" charge.
The vast majority of the federal government bureaucrats who would face the financial pain of potential furloughs during a lengthy shutdown are urban, college educated Democrats (the antithesis of the Republican base). A sizable portion of the Republican base despises the federal government and would love nothing more than to see it shuttered and to revel in the schadenfraude of the bureaucrats they blame for their declining standard of living themselves face financial precarity and the spectre of potential unemployment. This should give the GOP establishment negotiators "good cop/bad cop" leverage, but they perenially refuse to use it.
I mean, they are considered "must-pass" because eventually they have to pass, or the government doesn't exist. It has nothing to do with shutdowns---they might be good strategy for one or both parties! But even if you have a shutdown, the bills eventually have to pass.
The vast majority (75%) of the 2.25 million civilian federal employees work in national security (DoD, DHS, etc.) or law enforcement capacities. That doesn't count the 1.5 million uniformed military personnel. It is true that many people despise the "bureacrats," but many of those haters have a very skewed view of the typical federal employee, which is someone who works at DoD. Part of the problem, politically, with shutdowns is that the pain disproportionately falls on military families.
But again, that doesn't make it bad strategy. It might be the right course of action!
As usual, I enjoyed the energy and explanations in this post. Thanks so much!
Great post as always. Can you explain what HC-5 refers to in point #14?
It’s the big meeting room in the basement of the Capitol where the GOP conference has their regular weekly conference meeting.
Excellent post, and regarding your very last point, I don't get the sense that Dems are talking enough right now about abolishing the debt limit. I wish I knew why.