When
Government Shuts Down
by
Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
Recently
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.: What
Does ‘Class Action’ Mean?
From
The
Free Market, December 1996.
According to
official history, the 104th Congress doomed itself when it shut
down the government to force its budget priorities on the president.
People got up in arms and demanded that government be reopened.
This taught the people and their representatives a valuable lesson.
As much as we may complain, we truly need big government. Today,
we all agree with the White House vow to never allow the government
to shut down again.
Of course,
everything about this story is nonsense. Shutting down the government
was this Congress's most noble act. Though the freshmen, who forced
the closing against the leadership's wishes, didn't properly prepare
for the inevitable response from the media and the bureaucracy,
they were on the right track. It may have been the only principled
act in two years of political compromise.
Moreover, nobody
has produced a shred of evidence that the government shutdown was
as unpopular as the media claimed it was. It was asserted daily,
but never proven. Oh sure, we heard about how people couldn't get
passports, couldn't get into Yellowstone, couldn't see the Vermeer
art exhibit at the National Gallery of Art. But what's most startling
is that the central government which consumes 40 percent
of the national wealth wasn't missed much at all.
There was a
fiscal illusion at work. At issue was a budget authorization that
entitled government to spend money before it was there to spend.
But government could have reopened, and run based on present receipts.
That way the budget would be immediately balanced. Everyone claims
to want pay-as-you-go government, but nobody suggested this as an
option. They acted as if debt finance is part of the natural law.
There is still
more to learn about government during shutdowns. Consider what is
known as the "Washington Monument Ploy." When budget cuts
are threatened, visiting hours at popular monuments are cut back.
A budget cut is voted by Congress, or an insufficient increase,
and moments later an official-looking official asks the assembled
tourists to please disperse. Thanks to those greedy Congressmen,
we've been denied essential funds.
The media are
there to record every word, and conduct interviews to be broadcast
on national television. Average people tell the reporter, "my
family and I came all the way from Sacramento, but because of political
bickering, our vacation has been ruined," etc. The lesson is
clear: Congress had better vote every dime the president demands
or the People will strike back on prime time news. Sadly, this ploy
works time and again.
Behind the
scenes, the whole scenario has been orchestrated. There are very
few things the federal government does that people directly benefit
from. Among them are issuing passports, delivering the mail, running
monuments and museums, and maintaining national parks. That's precisely
why they take the hardest hit.
Now, in running
the Washington Monument Ploy, the White House has to be careful
not to cause it to backfire. For example, if the mail stopped being
delivered, the public might revolt against the Post Office itself,
and fuel demands that it be privatized. The trick is to shut down
services that affect a minority conspicuously, in ways the media
can dramatize, but not generate anger against government itself.
What's
behind it all, of course, is the desire to keep the largess flowing,
not to serve the public. If the feds wanted to serve the public,
and Congress wasn't authorizing new spending, they could divert
money from services people don't need ("Social Services for
Refugees and Cuban/Haitian Entrants") to those they do need
(passports). Even better, a truly beneficent leader would simply
give away control of monuments and passport offices to private entities
to run for profit.
Here's the
irony. The services that people need most from government are the
very ones that could easily be run privately. This follows by definition:
if people want something, an entrepreneur is glad to make a profit
providing it. On the other hand, the services people don't need
shouldn't exist at all.
From a strategic
standpoint, the government has the incentive to hold onto privatizable
services like national parks because they are useful in times of
government shutdown. It monopolizes some services just to keep the
public from thinking they could get along without the government.
This is more
than just a budget trick; it goes to the heart of nearly everything
government does. Even at the local level, when budgets are cut,
the first thing to get the axe are extended hours at the public
library. Then the most popular periodicals themselves are canceled.
Government, in its malice, gains more benefit from withholding useful
services than providing them.
This is the
very opposite of how private business operates. When a business
has to cut costs, it looks for waste and inefficiencies, but it
is loathe to cut consumer services. In fact, it might improve them
if doing so is likely to bring in more revenue. Sticking it to the
consumer would only create more losses and drive the company toward
lower profitability.
With government
sabotaging any attempt to cut its budget by cutting services people
want, how can government budgets be successfully cut? There's no
easy answer ideally the person doing the cutting would have
massive power over the bureaucracy but here's the first step.
All so-called essential government services should be privatized.
That way government would no longer be seen as economically or socially
essential.
Let's start
with the Washington Monument. There's no excuse for not handing
it over to a private company or association to run, just as Mount
Vernon is run privately. Those who say it can't be done haven't
noticed how many people visit that political temple every year.
But isn't this
monument a public good that people should have full access to? Granted.
That's why we need private enterprise, which always focuses on the
public, to provide it. The same is true of the mails, national parks,
passport offices, the Smithsonian, or any other good or service
the government provides that people regard as necessary to their
well being.
The advantage
would be obvious. During the next government shut down let's
hope it comes soon and stays long the bureaucracy would have
fewer means of demonstrating that we really need them. They will
be reduced to showing how awful it is that the Indian and Native
American Employment and Training Program has been shut down.
All
of this presumes that government has no other means to fund itself
during emergencies. Unfortunately, that is not true. During the
1995 shutdown, Treasury head Robert Rubin conspired with other government-financial
elites to run the government on money looted from civil-service
pension accounts, although this is illegal.
Then the bureaucracy
gave Congress a sock in the chops by forwarding unearned back pay
to the entire government workforce. The whole shutdown ended up
as a paid vacation for the most despised class in the country. If
anything about the shutdown inspired public anger, it was this above
all. Sadly, the opposition party took the blame, and then let bygones
be bygones.
The lesson
of the government shutdown is not that people want it to stay open,
always and forever, but that the world doesn't fall apart when Uncle
Sam takes the day off. Let's give him the next century or so, see
how the people on their own can restore prosperity and liberty.
With no taxes to pay, there'd be plenty left over to pay even exorbitant
admission fees to the Washington Monument.
July
28, 2011
Llewellyn
H. Rockwell, Jr. [send him
mail], former editorial assistant to Ludwig von Mises and congressional
chief of staff to Ron Paul, is founder and chairman of the Mises
Institute, executor for the estate of Murray N. Rothbard, and
editor of LewRockwell.com.
See his
books.
Copyright
© 2011 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in
part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
The
Best of Lew Rockwell
|