Nobody Wins During A Shutdown
By Representative Dusty Johnson
As Congress buckles down over the next three weeks to deal with the government shutdown and improve border security, I also want to keep our eye on this important fact:
This should never happen again.
We had a partial government shutdown for over a month. I truly believe the individuals who walk the halls of Congress came here for the right reasons, but it is far too easy to get caught up in the politics of D.C. The shutdown is proof of that, and it is painfully obvious to many of us who are new here – and inherited the shutdown as we were sworn in – that the unwillingness to come to the negotiating table is purely political.
Shutdowns are a game of win or lose, but the reality is nobody wins during a shutdown. A reported 4,400 federal employees in South Dakota did not get a paycheck. I’ve talked with a number of the impacted families and their stories are not easy to hear. These individuals are the ones who lose during political standoffs.
Many employees showed up to work during the 35 day impasse and they deserve our appreciation for bearing the weight of a political fight beyond their control. It’s time Congress put into place a structure that will put pressure on the deal makers in our government. Congress should feel the pain that more than eight hundred thousand Americans have over the last month. Our federal workers and the American people deserve better.
I have been talking with colleagues on both sides of the aisle every single day about how to make this situation less likely, if not impossible, in the future. We’re discussing a number of specific legislative solutions, from withholding congressional and political appointee pay during the shutdown to requiring Congress stay in session continuously until a shutdown is resolved. I’m hopeful those “pressure points” would motivate Congress and the Executive Branch to fund our government on time. The American people shouldn’t have to pay for a government that isn’t serving them because of political disagreements.
In South Dakota, we come to the table, negotiate and deliberate until we come up with a solution. This stands in stark contrast to the 30+ days of failed negotiations we saw in Washington. Congress should take note and follow South Dakota’s example.
Here’s the deal – we need improved border security and we need to keep the government open. If Speaker Pelosi wants $0 for a wall and President Trump wants $5.7 billion, let’s negotiate a number somewhere in the middle, end any and all future shutdowns and get back to work.
###
A number in the middle is not what is needed. President Trump made offers that Pelosi and Schumer refused to consider. I am hoping the caving by Trump is because there were promises made about negotiating. It is about time the negotiators get down and do their jobs. And if P & S refuse to consider the wall they wanted in the past, then perhaps the shutdown has to happen again.
A number somewhere in the middle? I’m dumbfounded by the rank stupidity on display in Dusty’s simplistic approach to addressing such an important issue.
Is this a joke? The dynamics changed when the Democrats took back the House.
Dusty said he was willing to work with anyone- yet he voted against every proposal the Dems put forward.
He’s another party hack that over promised and under delivered and the Fed employees in South Dakota and around the country hurt for it.
More of the same-
Can we just acknowledge for a second that all the previous comments are the exact mentality that caused the shutdown? Refusing to negotiate is not the answer.
Kudos to Dusty for realizing strict adherence to the party position doesn’t always make sense. If Trump and Repubs aren’t willing to accept a penny less that $5.7 and Dems aren’t willing to fund a penny more than $0, we all lose.
Has anyone ever bought a car or house? Ever negotiated a salary? Ever mediated toddlers over who’s turn it is to play with a new toy? Both parties have to give something else both end up crying in time out.
Bob, I appreciate your pragmatic perspective and you’re correct — except that Republicans ARE willing to accept numbers below $5 billion, whilst the Democrats are clearly & explicitly unwilling to fund even 1 inch of border wall construction. The dems know Trump will lose in 2020 if he does not build a wall, so that result — zero wall funding — is the only endgame dems (and their progressive donors) will accept. Congressional dems prefer an interminable government shutdown to ANY border wall construction, economic consequences notwithstanding. If the house funds Trump’s wall, Trump will be seen by voters to have achieved his end, and dem donors will revolt, abandoning every moderate legislator who voted to compromise. If Republicans forsake the wall, they can & should negotiate for other modest objectives. Yet, voters & the media will deem that outcome a dem victory, and Trump will lose in 2020, having betrayed his core campaign pledge. You can’t negotiate a fair salary with someone who’s not hiring.
I’ve never been disappointed by Dusty before today. Oh well.
As disappointing as his “compromise with evil” suggestion is, he is correct that congressional pay and junkets should also stop during a shutdown.
Some additional suggestions:
1) If non-essential employees are given an unscheduled vacation, they should not then be paid for the work they didn’t do.
2) If essential employees are required to work, they should be paid right away (on the normal schedule).
3) While some employees are “non-essential” only in the short term, many others are just plain non-essential. Any future “shutdowns” should be used to thin the herd.
4) If congress passes a budget (instead of a continuing resolution), they don’t need to worry about shutdowns.
“A reported 4,400 federal employees in South Dakota did not get a paycheck.”
Perhaps we should have made the partial shutdown of non-essential federal services permanent so that we can reduce the problem a shortage in the private sector’s workforce. A true conservative would have thought of that. A tax and spend liberal would have instead use divisive partisan politics to continue the divide and conquer agenda of the global Oligarchy. Which way did Dusty go?