May 22, 2012

Closing Washington and Sending Workers Home Actually Costs Taxpayers - Fact Check: The (high) Price of a Shutdown

Claim: As Washington teetered on the budgetary brink, House Speaker John Boehner last week sounded an alarm. "If you shut the government down,” he asserted, “it'll end up costing more than you'll save.”

Reality: Boehner is right.

Just because the government turns out the lights, shuts down agencies such as the IRS, closes the gates of national parks, and furloughs 800,000 “nonessential” workers doesn’t mean taxpayers save money.  In fact, it could prove more costly than business as usual – adding hundreds of millions of dollars a day to state and national spending.

For one thing, those workers may be entitled to back pay and will be eligible for unemployment. States will have to shell out money ahead of transfers from Washington. Then there’s all the work that will have piled up. When they return, many government employees will have to put in extra time.

A shutdown also can add to the money needed by government agencies, which lose the ability to collect fees on their services. During the government shutdown in 1995, for instance, the national parks lost 7 million visitors, costing the National Park Service an estimated $14 million in tourist revenues. Overall, the Office of Management and Budget estimates the shutdown cost taxpayers around $100 million each day at first – and more than $1 billion after three weeks.

And this isn’t counting a potentially huge impact on the private sector.  For instance, some kinds of trading on Wall Street won’t take place.

Bart Chilton, chairman of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, said in a statement on Thursday the financial damage from a shutdown would be “potentially incalculable” – and the consequences of less regulatory policing “could be enormous.” His own agency, he warned, was entering “dangerous territory” by making public its contingency plans.

States have worries of their own.

“The largest factor in determining the impact of any federal government shutdown is its length,” notes a February briefing paper by the National Association of State Budget Officers. “While a brief shutdown would be inconvenient, a longer-term shutdown could prove to be significantly problematic.”

While the last shutdown in 1995 lasted only 20 days, Maryland had to come up with an extra $1.4 million in state employee salaries. Federal shares of those salaries had been suspended. The District of Columbia had to spend $4.4 million.

Over the last three decades, the government has shut down 16 times. This report by the Congressional Research Service covers some of the causes and consequences.  A Goldman Sachs economist has estimated that a shutdown today would equal $8 billion in weekly spending.

Speaker of the House John Boehner. Credit: Alex Brandon/Associated Press

Reprinted by Permission © 2012, The Center for Public Integrity®. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Author for Center for Public Integrity

The Center for Public Integrity is dedicated to producing original, responsible investigative journalism on issues of public concern in the USA and around the world.

202-466-1300

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.