The Shutdown in the USA Appended Between Obama and the Congress - Essay Example

?Negotiation & Conflict Resolution: The Shutdown in the USA appended between Obama and the Congress Change is most constant ingredient of life, in fact the essence of life. And change gives birth to conflict; conflict between those who advocate change and those who oppose it. The situations and circumstances around us in all walks of life are replete with changes and hence are not devoid of conflict. In all spheres of life- political, social, economic, legal and technological- one can see the prevalence of conflicts and subsequently the process of negotiation to resolve those conflicts. One recent instance of conflict and negotiation in the political world is the partial shutdown of the US government. The conflict originated from lack of consensus on political issues but wrecked not only the political but also the social and economic fabric of the US. The primary parties to this conflict were President Obama with the Democrats on one side and the Republican House of Representatives on the other side. The issue arose on October 1, 2013 during a budget discussion session in the Congress due to a disagreement over a particular healthcare reform law. The Republicans were not in favor of passing the reformed healthcare law and looked forward to a delay or repeal in the legislation. But President Obama strictly asserted that he wanted the bill to be passed clean and without any amendments or unnecessary delays. The resulting concord between the parties led the Republicans to declare a partial shutdown of the government operations in the US. This primary issue of the healthcare reform bill further got entangled with another vital issue regarding the debt ceiling for government borrowings. Obama requested a relaxation of the debt ceiling as the deadline for the same was approaching soon, i.e. on October 17, 2013. Not extending the debt limit would lead to a fiscal impasse as the nation will be unable to repay its debts and clear its bills. This would affect not only the US economy but also the global economy and the secondary parties such as the financial agencies, stock markets, federal workers and general public. The 16-day-long impasse in the US was primarily born out of a policy deadlock over the spending bill in the government budget. President Obama had suggested the inclusion of a healthcare reform law, Affordable Care Act, which offers a range of healthcare and welfare facilities for the US citizens. But the Republican-led House of Representatives refused to pass it and showed intentions to repeal or delay it by the span of a year. They called for a House-Senate Conference Committee to resolve the matter. But the Democrats refused to this idea, saying that the House was just trying to defer the new healthcare law using the pretext of the budget process. Owing to this unresolved conflict, the House declared a partial shutdown of the government on October 1. While the Republicans insisted on a delay in the implementation of the healthcare reform, Obama remained immovable on his stance that “Obamacare” is non-negotiable and that he wanted a “clean bill” devoid of any conditions or amendments. (CNBC, 2013) This shutdown very soon raised an alarm amongst the secondary parties to the conflict. Wall Street officials expressed their concern over the present shutdown and the future prospect of a financial default. The US government was fast approaching its debt ceiling of $ 16.7 trillion which it was about to hit on October 17 (Jackson, 2013). James Clapper, Director of the US National Intelligence, shared with the media his grave fears regarding the severe impact of the shutdown on their ability “to support the military, to support diplomacy, and to support the policymakers.” (Cornwell, 2013). Owing to the shutdown, 70% of the federal intelligence personnel had been sent on unpaid leave. Lloyd Blankfein, Chairman and CEO of the Goldman Sachs Group, apprehended over the aligned and perhaps more critical issue of a financial default arising from the shutdown. Saying that America had seen a precedent for government shutdown but not for default, he clearly stated that under the current situation the debt ceiling should not be used as a “cudgel” to seek concessions. (Jackson, 2013) The secondary, but probably more profound, issue was the need for a hike in the debt ceiling. President Obama also insisted on clearing the bills for the spending incurred by the Congress. He agreed that if the debt ceiling is not raised, the government will be unable to repay its obligations. This will create a default that will harm the economy worldwide and damage the economic recovery in the US. So he remained undeterred on his stance of no negotiation over the need to raise the debt ceiling. On this issue, the Republicans adopted a stance of framing some temporary stopgap measures to fund the government to end the shutdown. Several rounds of negotiation were held thereafter at the White House between the House and the Senate. But hardly any progress was made in the first few sittings. More than an hour’s discussion at the White House yielded no fruits as reported by John Boehner, the Republican speaker. He addressed reporters after the meeting, saying- “We had a nice conversation, a polite conversation, but at some point we've got to let the process that our founders gave us work out.” (Cornwell, 2013). During the meetings, the Republicans continued trying to use the budget process as a pretext to do away with the newly proposed health reform. But President Obama, backed by the Democrats, refused to agree. The secondary parties to the issue, such as the Wall Street, the National Intelligence and the financial agencies like the Goldman Sachs Group who were already alarmed about the shutdown and prospect of default now exerted abundant pressure on the House to reopen the government. Another major stakeholder in this nationwide crisis was the general masses of the US. A possible public outrage would have been instrumental in bring an end to the political deadlock. The Republicans, having sensed this fact, came up with a new plan. They offered to pacify public opinion by restoring government funding in three major areas where the shutdown had insinuated great wrath. These were the national parks throughout the US, the veterans' programmes and federally sponsored facilities in Washington DC. But the Democrats publicly opined that the Republics should rather reopen all government functions instead of just a few selective ones. As one Senator said, “We want the release of all hostages, not just a few of them”. Thus, both the parties played the blame-game to win the crucial battle for public opinion. But as reflected in the diverse public polls, ultimately majority of the public took a stance against the prolonged shutdown. (O’Brien, 2013) After a more than two-week-long shutdown, President Obama finally signed a last-minute deal to avert the debt default. The government reopened on October 17, 2013 after a 16-day-shutdown. The previously laid off federal workers were called back to work. The government appointed a set of budget negotiators in order to look for a long-term solution to the budget crisis. The US House of Representatives finally passed the stopgap bill, with 285 members voting for it and 144 against it. The Senate passed the same bill with 81:18 majority votes. The bill gave Obama what he had been demanding for months- a hike in the debt ceiling and government funding bill. The US borrowing authority got an extension until February 7. Moreover, the healthcare legislation was passed with minimal changes such as introduction of income-verification process for those seeking subsidies under the act. The Republicans failed to incorporate any other changes in the act. (CNBC, 2013) The goals that both the parties look forward to achieving at the end of the negotiation process are collectively known as the substance of the negotiation. (Schermerhorn, 2009) In this particular case, the primary substance was to put an end to the government shutdown prevailing in the US for 16 days. This was coupled with an intention to take the nation out of the prospect of a financial crunch. BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement) is a vital ingredient of any negotiation. It enables the parties to prudently weigh and compare all the favourable and unfavourable alternatives available to them and thus helps them in deciding whether or not to accept the outcome of negotiation (Singh, 2009). ZOPA (Zone of Possible Agreement) is another key concept in relation to negotiation. It is the range within which a possible deal satisfies the interests of both the parties (Luecke, 2003). In this case, the ZOPA for Obama was almost zero since he was firm on his stance of no negotiation in both the issues: the healthcare law and the debt ceiling. Distributive strategy is applied when firmly competitive negotiation is the only way to a successful resolution. This happens when both the parties stick to their independent stance, leaving no room for any compromise (Guasco & Robinson, 2007). There is no emphasis on maintaining cordiality or relationship-orientation. The parties chase their individual wills and goals, at the cost of its opponent’s goals, to create a win-lose situation. In this case, the desired outcome was achieved only by the Democrats, while the efforts of the Republicans went in vain. Two aligned issues were intricately entangled in the conflict and the ensuing shutdown. First was the disagreement in the White House over Obama’s new health policy. The second was the probable debt default and financial crisis that could have resulted from the shutdown. The conflicting parties should ideally have avoided their political hysteria and paid more attention to the economic slowdown caused by their irrational and injudicious stances. Though the shutdown occurred in the US for 16 days, its impact was equally damaging on the international economy. Moreover, its adverse effects on the domestic economy did not remain restricted to just 16 days and went much beyond that to cause a slowdown in the nation’s economic recovery. Another fact that is astonishing and disturbing is the unusual and unexpected delay of the US government in reaching a definite conclusion. A better-handled and timely negotiation would have not only saved time, money and efforts, but also minimized the damages caused to the global economy and society. After all, a stitch in time saves nine. The recent government shutdown in the US presented a unique instance of an issue that was significantly blown out of proportions, a political conflict that converged with socio-economic matter and a negotiation process that though effective at the end was highly inefficient and incompetent. REFERENCES Cornwell, R. (2013). US shutdown and looming debt crisis talks between President Obama and Congressional leaders fail to break the policy deadlock. The Independent, Washington, retrieved on December 10, 2013 from: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-shutdown-and-looming-debt-crisis-talks-between-president-obama-and-congressional-leaders-fail-to-break-the-policy-deadlock-8854474.html Jackson, D. (2013). Congressional leaders, Obama meet; still no shutdown deal. USA Today, retrieved on December 10, 2013 from: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/10/02/obama-shutdown-boehner-mcconnell-reid-pelosi/2908083/ Obama signs budget deal; government to reopen Thursday (2013), CNBC, retrieved on December 10, 2013 from: http://www.cnbc.com/id/100968089 O’Brien, M. (2013). Polls: Public places more blame for shutdown on GOP, NBC News, retrieved on December 10, 2013 from: http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/07/20857912-polls-public-places-more-blame-for-shutdown-on-gop Fisher, R., Ury, W. & Patton, B. (1991).Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In (2nd edition), New York: Penguin Books Guasco, M. & Robinson, P.R. (2007).Principles of Negotiation: Strategies, Tactics, Techniques to Reach Agreement, Entrepreneur Press Schermerhorn, J.R. (2009). Exploring Management, John Wiley & Sons Luecke, R. (2003). Negotiation, USA: Harvard Business Press Singh, N. (2009). Negotiations, Delhi: Laxmi Publications Read More