Nobody should be pleased when the United States’ federal government shuts down over congressional squabbling. A shutdown does not expose how little we need government. It does not demonstrate how dysfunctional government is — we already know it is broken by partisan bickering and self-serving power brokers. No shutdown ever leads to reforms.
Spending continues, as the majority of federal spending is outside the budget process. That’s right: a third of spending isn’t even within the annual appropriations. Shutdowns end up costing money and solving nothing.
As Jeffrey Miron notes on Vox, libertarians should oppose shutdowns because they are pointless. Worse, they reinforce bad stereotypes about anti-government libertarianism… which isn’t genuine libertarianism. Smaller, more responsive government is not anarchy.
Some libertarians cheer when the government shuts down. Here’s why they shouldn’t.
By Jeffrey Miron Jan 21, 2018, 9:10am ESTShutdowns only influence discretionary spending that has to be reauthorized every year. Because entitlements constitute the large majority (roughly 67 percent) of federal expenditure, and because this component is growing at an unsustainable rate, shutdowns cannot have any meaningful impact on the budget deficit. And even with discretionary spending, around half is exempt given that many Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security functions are exempted from the shutdown, because they are considered “essential” services.
What’s more, praising the shutdown lends credence to the view that libertarians hate government in all its forms, which is not accurate. A full cessation of all spending, tomorrow, is not the libertarian dream. Libertarians believe most government impinges our freedom and reduces economic efficiency, but we do not hate government as a matter of principle; we merely argue it should be much smaller. And the process for winnowing out important projects from non-essential ones ought to be reasoned and democratic, not the result of a showdown between two parties all too happy with big government (even if their preferred programs differ).
Smaller government does not come about because of a shutdown. Quite the opposite, usually. (Sequestration during the presidency of Barack Obama offers an outlier to this rule. Real cuts to defense spending happened and the world did not end.)
No, to reduce the size and scope of the government towards a more responsive and reasonable size we must debate as a nation what the roles of the federal government and state governments should be. Most libertarians are fine with more control at the state and local level, where most services are provided. We must win the argument that federal spending and regulation can be refined. As the New York Times itself noted, a system with 5000 regulations for apple orchards is ripe for reform.
Brute force doesn’t fix political problems. Obstinance is not statecraft.
Our leaders, particularly President Trump, are meeting their most basic mandates under the Constitution. Pass a budget and then consider other issues. Then again, both parties are playing to their core constituencies by not compromising. They are doing, oddly enough, exactly what their voters want… and further breaking the democratic republic.
Libertarians — really, everyone — should be calling for a basic solution: any time there is no budget, spending continues indefinitely at current levels. Make that the law and remove the recurring sideshows of budget squabbles. If everything continued, the same function as a Continuing Resolution, then Congress and the president would not be able to play games with shutting down a small slice of the federal government.
We seriously need to reform the federal budget to remove both debt ceiling votes and budget brinksmanship. No other major nation operates like this, with the annual risk of a shutdown or default.
Photo by popmisa 
Discover more from Almost Classical
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
