Shutdown Showdown Preview

Yup, another of these is coming.

Chuck Schumer and the Democrats had no good options the last time the government needed funding to prevent a shutdown. They won’t have any good options the next time, when the fiscal year ends and Congress needs to pass spending bills. At least this time they have plenty of notice of what’s going to happen, but it doesn’t make their choices much easier.

Congress has to pass funding bills – or a stopgap spending bill – by the end of September in order to prevent a shutdown. Democrats in the House have it easy; they’ll no doubt vote unanimously against whatever Republicans propose. But in the Senate, these type of bills are subject to a filibuster – which means, in practical terms, that they need 60 votes to pass. And there are only 53 Republicans. If Democrats unite against (say) a stopgap bill, it can’t come to a final vote, and the government will shut down.

Normally, because spending bills need 60 votes, the majority is willing to work with the minority party to reach agreement (and the House, then, often has to accept what the Senate does). Republican Senators might be willing to work with Democrats this time, too.

But Democrats will have two strong reasons not to cut deals. For one thing, rank-and-file Democrats out in the nation are in no mood at all for cutting deals; they want to fight, and they’ll be furious with Schumer and anyone else who supports a bill that gives Republicans only, say, 75% of what they want. They have allies in the Senate, too.

More important, however, is that Donald Trump and his administration have bragged repeatedly that they won’t abide by any deal that they make with Democrats. Trump may push new “rescission” bills to cancel any spending Democrats win in negotiations – and those only require a simple majority in the Senate. At least that’s perfectly legal. The administration also claims the (bogus) right to “impound” funds – that is, to refuse to spend money despite laws passed by Congress and signed by the president. Impoundment is illegal and unconstitutional…but we don’t know whether the Supreme Court will stop it, or whether Trump would comply.

It’s never a good idea to cut a deal with someone who clearly telegraphs they won’t be bound by it.

Unfortunately, killing a stopgap funding bill by filibuster isn’t a good idea, either. Republicans will argue that Democrats are fully to blame for the hardships of a government shutdown, and it would be an easy argument to make if the majority of the House, the majority of the Senate, and the president all want to pass a bill and the Democrats are the ones actively doing something to stop it. Presidents have advantages in this kind of situation to begin with, since they have the biggest megaphone and can speak with one voice. Yes, this particular president is unpopular and is terrible at staying on script, so it’s at least possible that the blame might be shared – especially if Democrats can somehow center the public debate on popular programs that they can say they are trying to save from cuts. But still, the Republican argument is easier to make.

What’s more, right now everyone but Trump’s strongest supporters will naturally blame the incumbent party for anything that goes wrong. But a closed government changes that; if, say, FEMA is slow to respond to a disaster, Trump will be able to blame Democrats far more plausibly than he could without a shutdown.

An even stronger reason to avoid a shutdown-by-filibuster, however, is that there’s no reasonable, achievable demand to make if the core problem is that Trump and the Republicans can’t be trusted to abide by any deal that they make. And it’s never a good idea to get into a shutdown fight without having a way to win.

A third option is perhaps even less viable: They could oppose the bill without filibustering, allowing it to pass with a simple majority. But that combines a fully GOP-written bill with what would be seen as a failure to fight.

The biggest difference between this coming showdown and the one back in the spring is that Democrats know what they’re up against. Back then, Schumer and the Democrats seemed to believe (and not without reason) that House radicals would defeat any GOP-only bill in that chamber, forcing Republicans to retreat and cut a deal with Democrats. The action would be in the House, with the Senate then ratifying the bipartisan deal. But Speaker Mike Johnson has proved multiple times now that there’s no bill too extreme for the least conservative House Republicans, and that the radicals are willing to accept victory when they get it. Schumer and the Democrats know that this time, they can’t expect to be saved by the House.

I have no idea how this plays out. But if Democrats hold out against compromise, the easiest way out of it would be for Senate Republicans to end the filibuster for spending bills, which they could do with a majority vote. Republicans have claimed to be opposed to any such changes, but I don’t take that very seriously; the real question is what circumstances would push them to do it, and this seems to be a likely one. Besides, the other way to end it without a deal would be much worse for the rule of law and for the Senate – if Trump simply ends a shutdown by fiat and claims the right to spend government funds by presidential edict, Congress be damned.

Besides, plenty of Democrats want to see the filibuster disappear, and having the GOP taking the next big bite out of it would be just fine with them. And again: Normally, Democrats would be balancing the policy gains they could achieve by bargaining and cutting the best deal against the dangers of a Republican-only bill if they go for a shutdown without hope of compromise. But in this case, it’s just not clear that bargaining can be meaningful as long as Trump is in the White House – and Senate Republicans are willing to back him.

That doesn’t make using the filibuster to force a shutdown a good choice. But it may turn out to be the least-bad option.