The government is shutdown, which means you can expect a zombie apocalypse at any moment, right? Of course not. The odds of you noticing that some of the government is close is pretty slim, unless you work for the government – then you get a free vacation. So, why would anyone care if the government is closed? More interestingly, what if President Donald Trump simply ignored that it was closed?
When I say “ignored” I don’t mean ordering non-essential workers back to the office, although that could be a part of it, if they really want it to be. No, I mean simply paying the bills and the salaries of the people deemed “essential” and forced to work.
What would Democrats honestly do if the President ordered military salaries to be paid? The money is there – the cash flooding into the IRS doesn’t stop during a shutdown, your taxes in the private sector are still withheld and sent to Uncle Sam. The money is just sitting there in government accounts, unable to be spent to because “authorization” to spend it has expired.
If that sounds stupid, that’s because it is.
But what if the money did go out, what if salaries were paid?
Democrats would scream, of course, but that’s just something that happens on a day that ends in “Y.” Would they also sue? Imagine the political advantage for Republicans as Democrats sue to stop the President from paying soldiers. Beyond that, what if the President paid all the essential employees? Many of them are union members, unions that give a lot of money to Democrats and count on their members to vote for Democrats. Would those members be happy about their party seeking a court to order their pay stopped?
The ads write themselves: “The entire Democrat Party was founded on the concept of no paying people for the work they were forced to do, they even fought a war trying to protect that institution. Now, nearly 250 years later, they’re still fighting hard to make sure people do not get paid for their hard work…”
The concept of a “government shutdown” didn’t come about until 1980, when Jimmy Carter’s Attorney General decided that spending any money deemed non-essential without a current authorization should not be done. Before then, the government simply paid the bills as they always did – the spending had been authorized, the work had been done, and the money was there. The government didn’t close.
Why not go back to that?
Wikipedia (I know, but it is what it is) describes the situation this way, “Over the course of the 1970s, there were many funding lapses often caused by tangential issues. In the course of legislative research, a staffer for Representative Gladys Spellman came across the Antideficiency Act provisions, and Spellman contacted Comptroller General Elmer Staats for an opinion. Staats responded that 'we do not believe that the Congress intends that federal agencies be closed during periods of expired appropriations.' However, Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti overruled this on April 25, 1980, issuing an opinion that the Antideficiency Act did require agencies to shut down during a funding gap.”
The post is footnoted to this 1981 article in the Washington Post that backs up their assertion. In it, Civiletti asserts “that he intended to back up his interpretation to the fullest: the law provides criminal penalties of $5,000 in fines and two years in jail for agency heads convicted of violations; the Justice Department, Civiletti said, would prosecute violators.”
So the penalty for violating this shutdown and paying the bills was created by the then AG, which means the current Attorney General could choose to interpret the whole thing a different way, doesn’t it?
Democrats could sue to stop all payments, thereby ending the fake blame game of who is responsible for it or, if Democrats weren’t politically suicidal, end the concept of government shutdowns altogether. Would either option bother you?
The only reason the government shuts down is because the second worst President in history’s Attorney General said it had to, and everyone else after pretty much obeyed. If anyone disobeyed, they faced punishment simply made up by him.
Maybe President Trump should take another look at that interpretation and challenge it; dare Democrats to sue to stop people from being paid for the work they’re forced to do for free. When your opponent is committed to political suicide, you should build as many bridges for them as possible, don’t you think?
Derek Hunter is the host of the Derek Hunter Show on WMAL in Washington, DC, and has a free daily podcast (subscribe!) and author of the book, Outrage, INC., which exposes how liberals use fear and hatred to manipulate the masses, and host of the weekly “Week in F*cking Review” podcast where the news is spoken about the way it deserves to be. Follow him on Twitter at @DerekAHunter.
Editor’s Note: The Schumer Shutdown is here. Rather than put the American people first, Chuck Schumer and the radical Democrats forced a government shutdown for healthcare for illegals. They own this.
Help us continue to report the truth about the Schumer Shutdown. Use promo code POTUS47 to get 74% off your VIP membership.