U.S. Government Shutdown Negotations (Past and Present) - Research Paper Example

? U.S. Government Shutdown Negotations (Past and Present) There have been seventeen United s Federal Government shutdowns (whole and partial) tocount, in the democratic history of the USA (Kosar, 2004, p.1). It is as per the provisions of the Anti-deficiency Act of 1980 that a government shutdown is made necessary (Dewhirst and Rausch, 2007, p.149). As the financial year ends in September, the usual practice is to get thirteen appropriation bills passed by the Congress and signed by the President before October 1 so that there is continued funding for the functioning of the government (Kosar, 2004, p.1). It is the absence of a consensus on the budget and the consequent inability to pass the appropriations bill before the October 1 deadline that creates an impasse and leads to a government shutdown (Kosar, 2004, p.2). When the government is forced to shutdown as a result of this, only the essential government services are allowed to operate (Kosar, 2004, p.2). Even the employees of these essential services will be sometimes forced to work without pay. The overall result of a shutdown will be that almost all governmental functioning will come to a standstill and the government employees will be left in wild, frustrated without pay. As the opposition party most often causes a shutdown, as against the budget plans of the ruling President, the opposition party will be held in the public eye as responsible for a shutdown. But the public will also criticize the unwillingness of the President to accept the reasonable suggestions made by the opposition, on certain occasions. So a shutdown can dim the electoral prospects of both the ruling party and the opposition and above all make the lives of the people miserable. In order to avert such consequences, negotiations get underway before and after shutdowns. These negotiations are good examples to the application of major negotiation theories, understanding which; the efficiency of such negotiations can be qualitatively enhanced in the future. Negotiation theories Though there are different strategies based on different theories regarding negotiation, the negotiation practitioners usually are found to use a mix of more than one theory (Adams, 2003, p.55). Broadly negotiation theories can be categorized as “cooperative or competitive” (Adams, 2003, p.55). Usually the tactics adopted could be a negotiation process beginning with a problem-solving interest-based approach and concluding with the competitive positional approach (Adams, 2003, p.55). This is what is called an integrative approach (Adams, 2003, p.55). The advantage of this approach is that in the beginning of negotiations, an amicable atmosphere for the very process of negotiation is created through the cooperative interventions included in the problem-solving interest-based approach. Once the trust of both parties has been acquired in this manner, then the negotiator can easily move on to a more competitive attitude (Adams, 2003, p.55). This is particularly helpful in dealing with negotiations between continuous relationships (Adams, 2003, p.55). Competitive positional negotiation In competitive positional negotiation, the negotiator makes the party to believe that he/she is “working vigorously on their behalf” (Adams, 2003, p.37). By this strategy, the negotiator wins the trust of the party and this trust is what helps the negotiator in a later stage to convince the party that a cooperative approach has to be adopted (Adams, 2003, p.37). But as far as the competitive positional negotiation is going on there is no scope for accepting the other party’s viewpoints or demands. This is because, the party already takes a position and he/she also believes that one is competitive enough to win that position. Hence the party does not feel a need for cooperation. Problem-solving interest-based negotiation. The problem-solving interest-based negotiation is more flexible and with a commitment to resolve the problem and protect the interests of both parties as far as possible. The most important aspect of this approach is that both parties here believe that they have a common interest to be fulfilled in the resolution of the given problem (Adams, 2003, p.49). This include, identification of all the facts involved by both parties, interpretation of these facts by both parties from their own perspectives, and then mutual accommodation of these opposing perspectives (Adams, 2003, p.49). But this approach has a negative aspect in that it may “encourage an opposing party to remain firm because they believe that the capitulation of their adversary is “just around the corner” ” (Adams, 2003, p.53). Shutdowns Shutdowns have occurred in US history when “Congress and the President did not enact regular appropriations bills by the beginning of the fiscal year,” which means that there is no congressional approval for the budget plans presented by the President (Brass, 2011, p.3). But shutdowns have also happened when “Congress and the President did not come to an agreement on stop-gap funding through a CR” (Brass, 2011, p.3). CR is a continuing resolution, which provides a temporary arrangement to continue funding. In both these situations, negotiations have a great role to play. In 1981, there happened a US government shutdown, which was caused by President Reagan vetoing a continuing resolution (Longley, 2011). But after some hours, the President was negotiated into signing “a new version of the continuing resolution” (Longley, 2011). The point of disagreement was that deficits had become very high and tax cuts clubbed with increased defense spending was causing economic turmoil (A Concise History of the House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations, n.d., p.19). The negotiations actually averted the shutdown by reducing it to only a few hours. In 1984, again an unapproved budget caused a shutdown (Longley, 2011). It was the increasing defense spending that angered the Democrats and caused the stalemate. Democrats became successful in “cutting Reagan’s defense increase in half” and passed the 13 appropriations bills (A Concise History of the House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations, n.d., p.19). On the next day of the shutdown itself, an emergency spending bill was passed and the shutdown was called back (Longley, 2011). In 1990 also, a shutdown was caused by an unapproved budget and an absence of continuing resolution (Longley, 2011). This shutdown lasted three days. It was the tax increases and cuts on social welfare programs proposed in the budget that were opposed by both Republicans and Democrats (A Concise History of the House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations, n.d., p.19). A shutdown became imminent when Bush vetoed a CR (A Concise History of the House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations, n.d., p.20). The final conflict resolution exercise included the following steps: Budget Committee Chairman Leon Panetta of California introduced H.R. 5835, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, which passed, and President Bush signed it….the law provided for significant tax increases and spending cuts, but also included the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 (A Concise History of the House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations, n.d., p.20). From all these instances, it can be seen that it was the defence spending by the government that caused many government shutdowns. But despite the negotiations that went into the resolution of all these shutdowns, the US budget allocation for defence has went on increasing disproportionately. Also, it can be inferred that it has always been the competitive positional negotiations of the respective US Presidents that carried more weight. 1996 Shutdown The shutdown of 1996 was “caused by the expiration of a continuing funding resolution (P. L. 104-31) agreed to on September 30, 1995, and by President Clinton’s veto of a second continuing resolution and a debt limit extension bill” (Kosar, 2004, p.2). Actually this was a sum of two shutdowns that had to be there neck by neck. The passing of the appropriations bill before the funding resolutions expired was stalled by the clash between President Clinton and the Republicans regarding a deficit reducing balanced budget (Schier, 2000, p.51). As time was running off, the Congress tried to pass a continuing resolution instead of the appropriations bills but President Clinton vetoed it (Schier, 2000, p.51). There was no option left other than a shutdown. The shutdown was partial and continued during the period, December 16, 1995 to January 6, 1996, and was the longest in the history of US Federal Government (Kosar, 2004, p.2). Finally, the shutdown ended when “the White House and Congress agreed on a new resolution” (Kosar, 2004, p.2). Lot of negotiation went into both parties agreeing to a continuing resolution and the point of agreement reached was that in the budget, Clinton would commit himself to “balance the federal budget in seven years based on CBO economic projections” (Schier, 2000, p.52). In this way, a negotiation process was initiated based on the problem-solving interest-based approach. But only a temporary resolution was enacted. When the real budget negotiations began for the financial year 1996, in the form of a reconciliation bill, the talks soon came to a standstill because of Clinton’s unwillingness to submit the seven year CBO economic projections-based plan (Schier, 2000, p.52). GPO leaders accused Clinton of presenting a case of “bad faith” (Schier, 2000, p.52). Here, it can be seen that once the stage for negotiation has been set with the use of cooperative approach, both parties began to move on to the competitive approach. It was in this context that the “reconciliation bill that the congress enacted was vetoed… and the next day, President Bill Clinton presented his third budget plan- this time proposing a balanced budget in seven years based, however, on the more optimistic economic assumptions of the OMB (Schier, 2000, p.52). But still this budget was assessed “$115 to $175 billion short of a balanced budget” (qtd. in Schier, 2000, p.52). And naturally, the Republicans were very unhappy about this. They judged it as “phony” “economic projections” (qtd. in Schier, 2000, p.52). This was a moment when there was total loss of trust between the two parties owing to the extreme competitive positions that both parties took. Though President Clinton remained adament regarding the 1996 budget, the Republicans could influence Clinton in that his 1997 budget plan “proposed to balance the budget by 2002 on the basis of the more pessimistic CBO forecasts, a long-standing Republican demand” (Schier, 2000, p.52). Here, it can be observed that in the negotiations, both parties had partial victory. But the Republicans had to sacrifice their public image by becoming the cause for government shutdown while Clinton had to change his previous stand in favor of a balanced budget (Schier, 2000, p.53). But it can be concluded that in the initial stage of this shutdown, the negotiations were attempts to avert the shutdown, but when Clinton became adamant with his position, the negotiations came to an impasse. This caused the shutdown. But again they were started and resulted in the resolution of the shutdown. In each of the shutdown experiences, similar stages of negotiations, whereby shutdown is caused, prolonged and averted, can be found. In 2011 also, the government nearly faced a shutdown though it was averted in the last minute. One criticism raised regarding the recent negotiations to avert the 2011 shutdown has been that: In fact, the Democrats and Republicans are actually cooperating with each other by focusing on small items. If their goal was to manage budget problems and keep government running, they’d have to look at larger areas of the budget, such as defense spending and entitlement programs. But those are political dynamite that could easily sink a reelection bid (Sherman, 2011). This has been the common nature of all shutdown negotiations in the past as well. The parties to negotiations would take positions with an eye on the electorate rather than on the real budget concerns (Sherman, 2011). Here, without paying attention to the real budget concerns like defense funding and entitlement programs, politicians are allegedly beating about issues like Planned Parenthood, which have inconsequential budget impact (Sherman, 2011). This can be taken as an example of a negotiation process, which would prolong the resolution or even result in a shutdown. And the real cause of budget deficit thus stays hidden from the discourses on budget (Sherman, 2011). BATNA or best alternative to a negotiated settlement has been the catch phrase for both parties in these negotiations (Sherman, 2011) And this negotiation strategy has been explained by Sherman as a “fall-back position” (2011). It presupposes that “the final negotiated result should provide at least as much, if not more, as the BATNA” (Sherman, 2011). From the above discussion, it becomes clear that shutdowns can occur for economic as well as political reasons. And the presence of a political reason can cause a shutdown and prolong it as is seen in 1996. The negotiations often are found to loose a broader perspective because of the presence of political interests as well as ‘tea party’ formations. And the undue advantage that the governing party gets in the case of a shut down had made shutdown a common practice until the beginning of this century. References A Concise History of the House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations, n.d., Washington: Government Printing Office. Adams, G.W. (2003) Mediating justice: legal dispute negotiations, Toronto: CCH Canadian Limited. Brass, C.T. (February 18, 2011) Shutdown of the Federal Government: causes, processes and effects, Congressional Research Service, Retrieved 25 April 2011 from http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34680.pdf Dewhirst, R.E. and Rausch, J.D. (2007) Encyclopedia of the United States Congress, New York City: Infobase Publishing. Kosar, K.R., (September 20, 2004) Shutdown of the Federal Government: Causes, effects and process, CRS Report for Congress, Retrieved 24 April 2011 from http://democrats.rules.house.gov/archives/98-844.pdf Longley, R. (April 8, 2011) Government shutdowns: history and effects of government shutdowns, Retrieved 25 April 2011 from http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/federalbudgetprocess/a/Government-Shutdowns.htm Schier, S.E., (2000) The postmodern presidency: Bill Clinton's legacy in U.S. politics, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Sherman, Erik, (April 8, 2011) Government shutdown: negotiation gone wrong….or right?, Retrieved 24 April 2011 from http://www.bnet.com/blog/technology-business/government-shutdown-negotiation-gone-wrong-8230-or-right/9856 Read More