Talk:Government shutdowns in the United States/Archive 1

Budget Crisis
Is there not an article on the budget crisis between Clinton and Gingrich? ~ Rollo44 00:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

How come there is nothing here about the Belgian government shutdown or a link to it? The US is the only country that shuts down the government? Let's see some fact checking before we make wild exaggerations like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.86.63 (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Anticipated shutdown(s) section
I created a new section and moved the possible 2011 shutdown to that from Notable shutdowns, because it is not a (notable) shutdown as it has not actually happened yet.WIERDGREENMAN (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Previous Shutdowns
List of government shutdowns since 1980 Can someone verify the above linked list of government shutdowns since 1980 so that they may be added to the content of the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HMTKSteve (talk • contribs) 14:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think there should be a table of previous shutdowns summarizing such characteristics as the relative size and duration of the shutdown and the key issues. Then again, I think the entire topic is so viewpoint-driven that I don't see how Wikipedia can even touch it at all. What can be said with respect to NPOV is so minimal that almost nothing can be said. For example, I think that the table should include some sort of column for who took the initiative in initiating the shutdown, or a column for total economic damage, but such important information is fundamentally linked to your point of view. Shanen (talk) 04:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

List of what shuts down?
Shouldn't this page (or a closely linked page) explain exactly what shuts down in a Federal government shutdown? For example, will the U.S. Post Office stop delivering mail, and even stop picking it up from public mailboxes? The District of Columbia has a special connection to the federal government; will public transportation in the District stop running during a shutdown?

I have been unable to find this information on the web. It sure would be great if Wikipedia covered these questions! &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 22:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Once it happens
Assuming the shutdown does occur at midnight tonight, it will probably warrant its own article -- United States federal government shutdown of 2011. NYyankees51 (talk) 13:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably, I imagine there would be at least as many sources as we have for United States federal government shutdown of 1995 and 1996 should it happen. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I think someone?
I think someone wrote something bias in the article but I feel that I do not have the say to remove it. Mickman1234 (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for telling us! What is it in the article that you believe is biased? --Tanner Swett (talk) 21:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

That would be, "A shutdown could leave 800,000 furloughed workers without a job, out of 2 million civilian federal employees and leaving the US Military without pay until a continuing resolution is passed." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.203.107.182 (talk) 01:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, it is obvious isn't it ? within hours a wiki page is created. And the page is coming as the 1st freaking entry on google searching "shutdown". The liberal(pinko) control of wiki and internet so incredible that it's just disgusting. You really have to know your way around the internet to actually get the unbiased-truth these days.

tick tock...
we're only 5 hours away from the government shutdown, who do you guys think public opinion is in favor of? Pyromania153 (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It's three minutes now. The GOP will suffer, and the Speaker in particular. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 23:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * To be clear, although time has run out, I don't think the shutdown officially occurs until midnight UTC - 4, although it being straight UTC would explain why the news services counters reached zero at midnight Zulu. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 01:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It was averted
Shutdown was averted with 45 minutes to spare. Unless my news was playing a rude prank, someone should change the section about the potential shutdown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue nacho (talk • contribs) 03:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Naw, it makes sense. The nut jobs saw that that's how they would look (as my comment above notes) so they backed down. NPR also was sayin Boehner would look brilliant if he didn' shut er down. Even Bachman and the like were pushing for some cover, the funny thing was the Nov. 2000 like resetting of the MSM countdown clocks at about 02:00 UTC. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 03:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

2013
If the government shuts down within the next few hours, does anyone plan to create a new article? -A1candidate (talk) 11:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Or at least mention it on the table for list of shutdowns. I am not good with editing tables such as these. Tinton5 (talk) 22:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If is the key word. Let's wait for an actual shutdown. Adding material about close calls would entail OR. – S. Rich (talk) 22:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I say add it now; as many news sources say it'll happen. jj (talk) 00:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL. We are speculating. They may jawbone for several more hours and come up with something by morning. When (or if) they tell the government workers that they are getting a day (or more) off, then we'll know. Still, we can leave 2013 as is, 'cause it's easy to fix. – S. Rich (talk) 01:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Shutdowns of the type experienced by the United States are nearly impossible in other industrialized nations... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.170.94 (talk) 06:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Some start and end dates inconsistent
Most of the shutdowns that started at the beginning of a new fiscal year, have a "start date" of September 30 (e.g. 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1982, 1984). However, the 2013 on lists October 1, which is inconsistent. Also, the "Total days" always seems to be the number of days between (and excluding) the start and end dates; for example, a "start date" of December 18 and "end date" of December 20 produces a "total days" of 1. So it seems like "start date" means the day before it begins, and "end date" means the day after it ends. The dates seem to be copied from this source. However, the second 1995 one is incorrect, because the source lists it as December 15, but here it says December 16 (according to the Wikipedia article, it started on December 16, so it should say December 15 in the table, to be consistent). --24.130.146.226 (talk) 08:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Previous Shutdowns
All such previous shutdown occurred mostly around september and october time period. Is there any specific reason for this pattern? I am just wondering. (59.90.163.73 (talk) 08:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC))

It's because the fiscal year for the US government is from October 1st to September 30th. That's why the shutdown, caused by a disagreement on the budget happens around the budget deadline (Sept 30th). 46.18.96.82 (talk) 10:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Language link to Deutsch
Does anybody have an idea why there is a language link from the German article to the English one but not vice versa? Lavoulte (talk) 09:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Democratic vs. Democrat vs. Democratically
Several entries say "Democratic controlled house..." While it is improper to use "Democrat" as the name of the party, as in "Democrat Party," in this case, it's being used to modify "controlled". As such, either "Democrat controlled house" or "Democratically controlled house..." would be more appropriate grammatically. Due to the sensitivity of using the bare "Democrat," I'm going to change it to "Democratically," but I could see the argument the other way, subject to further discussion. However, I'm pretty sure that the way it is now is wrong. PianoDan (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * 'Democratically controlled' could be read as controlled by votes, run by a Democracy. I think a reword to 'controlled by the Democratic Party' would be more clear. Markbassett (talk) 18:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Markbassett (talk) 18:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Previous shutdowns
Can someone add descriptions for what what shut down for each shutdown? I'm pretty sure that many of the earlier shutdowns only shut down specific agencies or were partial shutdowns. 66.180.181.190 (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Standard answer #3 ("It's Complicated"). Some more detail in content of Washinton Post cite : Matthews, Dylan (September 25, 2013). "Wonkblog: Here is every previous government shutdown, why they happened and how they ended".  But to go finer than that would get into more than folks want -- exactly what were you looking for ?
 * For example, just this last go around and just say DoD could be dozens of and pages about exempted vs excepted, when certain venues to monuments and accademies were closed to public tours or events, accusations of theatre involved with some, who got released at what time, why day POMA got folks called back varied Sunday/Monday/Tuesday/Wednesday and why some were furloughed again and whether that was POMA intent, what grounds contractors were or were not used to do which action, and on and on.  Then replicate that for each government department and each of the 18 events ... seems just too much.
 * Markbassett (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * An uncomplicated approach would be to list how many appropriations bills had not yet been passed (and so activities covered by them were subject to shutdown) as a fraction of the total number of appropriations subcommittees that year. So for any given row, the entry would be as simple as 3/13, 7/13, ... Possibly could be used to add a hover tool tip listing which appropriations bills either had or had not passed. --205.254.147.8 (talk) 14:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Congress paychecks
Would this be the article to mention bills dealing with not paying congress during shutdowns?


 * https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/112/s388
 * https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/113/hr3160
 * https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/113/hr3215

not sure if there are others 71.167.68.56 (talk) 18:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Serious Errors Removed
The introductory language contained the following errors:

1) There is no law allowing "essential functions" to run "despite" failure to authorize a budget or CR.

2) The Constitution does not "allow separate branches to be controlled by different factions" - it creates the separation of powers and NEVER REFERS TO POLITICAL PARTIES AT ALL.

3) Under a Parliament, there IS NO SEPARATION OF POWERS. Members of the legislature directly control the Executive as "ministers."

--Dlawbailey (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Poor phrasing re the cause of the current shutdown
The lede says that the current shutdown is "due to a dispute between President Obama and the Republican-controlled House of Representatives." This makes it sound like President Obama is standing alone, and is completely incorrect. The United States federal government shutdown of 2013 says it slightly better: "a result of political conflicts among Democratic President Barack Obama, the Democratic-controlled Senate, and the Republican-controlled House of Representatives." It's slightly confusing who is in conflict with whom, but at least it names more of the parties.

I would edit the page but it's semi-protected. &mdash; Sam 63.138.152.139 (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I see your point. How's this?  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Number of Days of current shutdown
I changed the template showing how many days the current shutdown is to start September 30, since the total should include the current day. It would be included in the final total even if the shutdown ended today (see above examples) so it needs to start from September 30. It might be best not to use the automatic template at all, and just update it at midnight Eastern each day, but it might be better to automate it until it ends. Also, does anyone know if that template uses UTC or if we can change the time zone? At 8 PM EDT tonight (midnight UTC) will it roll over to 2, even though there's a possibility Congress can end it in 1? Smartyllama (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It does appear to use UTC, as it currently says "2 days." I propose we input the number manually, changing it at midnight Washington time. Get a bot to do it if we're too lazy. Smartyllama (talk) 00:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Shutdown or Slimdown
I noticed Fox News (one of the biggest US news sources) consistently uses the word "slimdown" instead?

What's up with that? I can't find that term mentioned anywhere on this page - why not? 213.112.134.102 (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It's probably because "shutdown" is a word in the English language, and "slimdown" is a neologism with political overtones. 173.11.19.129 (talk) 22:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Fox broadcast uses "shutdown". Some of their webpages do too.   "Slimdown not a shutdown" seems a subthread to say the use of "shutdown" was not factually correct, either to highlight that essential bits never closed, or how much was brought back by special bills (like POMA had 90%+ of DoD back to work), or that there was some theatrics about closures going on in DC.  (e.g. Barricades specially placed around the sidewalk WW-II memorial, and veterans just going around them.)  63.239.65.11 (talk) 19:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 October 2013
Mail delivery is not affected as it is self-funded.[7]

Should be changed to

Mail delivery is not affected as it is self-funded and the funds are not appropriated by Congress.[7]

Reason: The original sentence is not entirely accurate. There are agencies where non-taxpayer funds which are shut down because the funds are nevertheless appropriated by Congress. The revised sentence is more accurate.

173.79.71.216 (talk) 01:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅--Rajulbat (talk) 17:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

"Lockout" language = uncited editorializing and should not be included again
Someone keeps writing that a government shutdown is similar to a private sector lockout of unionized workers. This is totally untrue and misleading. It's also uncited editorializing and not appropriate.

I will keep removing it until the person who keeps including it explains what she is trying to say and we can figure out whether properly cited language which reflects that opinion can be arrived at.

--Dlawbailey (talk) 02:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Most "Shutdowns" were single days or weekends
Unlike the Mainstream Media, I took the trouble to look up the day of the week of many of these "shutdowns" this article cites and found they were all partial or technical with no furloughs I could find (correct me if I'm wrong, please).

Therefore, I modified the lede, since it implied that shutdowns like the one that's happening now have been commonplace, which is simnply untrue.

I have problems with the whole chart at the bottom. This article is becoming very misleading in terms of emphasis - understandable as the mainstream media seems to have no actual memory or capacity to look in its own archives.

Also, I removed the bit about how the reagan shutdowns were about the budget deficit - misleading if you look at articles written at the time. Deficits were typically only one issue of many.

--Dlawbailey (talk) 04:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

"Funding Gap", "Shutdown" - should there be a new category?
I was confused by the fact that there were all these shutdowns I never heard about and/or don't remember. Reading the citations a bit more carefully, I found that the shutdowns before the last 3 were nothing like the last 3 in severity or duration. Not similar AT ALL.

One thing we really need to explain in this article (or at least get people on the right track to understand) is why most "shutdowns" don't about to much.

I think the best way - particularly for a student - to think about this "shutdown" thing everyone is talking about might be in two parts: First the legislative branch causes a "funding gap", exercising their power of the purse, Then the Executive (not exclusively but overwhelmingly) must enact the "shutdown" required by the Constitution and Antideficiency Act. This is the way it's presented in that COngressional Research Service document.

This explains why most of the "shutdowns" in history have had such minor effects: the funding gaps simply weren't for enough of the government and/or didn't last long enough that they actually expressed an intent of Congress to use the Power of the Purse to shut down government activities.

The point here is NOT TO LAY BLAME BUT TO EXPLAIN WHAT"S ACTUALLY HAPPENING. Congress could shut down the government as a last resort to stop a President from becoming a dictator, or to stop a war or whatever. The President might be - and Presidents have been - stupid and egotistical in their roles in pressing the Congress towards a funding gap. Or, Congress could be controlled by a bunch of bullies. Most of the time, however, none of these things are true. Congress and the President are reasonable people and shutdowns are negotiation gambits and maneuvers. Congress doesn't want to shut down the government and the Executive doesn't want to be shut down, so very little shutting down occurs.

But why not? If people - especially students - understand why not, a lot about our system of government becomes clear.

"Shutdowns" don't have to result in anything much shutting down because it's all about the intent of the Congress. The Antideficiency Act is all about the intent of the Congress. What's excepted and non-excepted is all about the intent of the Congress and especially the reality of what occurs after a funding gap is all about the intent of the Congress. Again, when all the Congress intends is to negotiate by pressing its point right down to the wire, the resultant funding gaps don't really result in a "shutdown" that amounts to anything. When Congress really is willing to close down the government and really exercise its Constitutional power, that's another matter and things get ugly.

This also explains why in the present shutdown the Congress (represented by the House) is trying to ameliorate the effects of the shutdown it created and the opponents of the shutdown (allied with the Executive by party) are not. Shutdown is too blunt an instrument in this instance. Congress wants to express its intent, not bludgeon the whole government. Meanwhile the parties getting shut down want as many voters as possible to feel as much pain as possible for as short a time as possible, so they will pressure Congress to give them their jobs back as soon as possible.

If people understand the Constitutional push/pull here then we will have done a real journalistic service.

--Dlawbailey (talk) 08:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)--Dlawbailey (talk) 08:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlawbailey (talk • contribs)

"List of U.S. government shutdowns" table entry biased, inaccurate
"List of U.S. government shutdowns" table, last item, circumstances column:

I suggest that the following sentence be removed: "The House continues to offer bills to fund important, non-contested agencies, but the Senate has rejected them,[15] while the Senate continues to offer bills that do not include language to defund or delay the Affordable Care Act, but the House has rejected them.[16]"

I believe that the wording of first part of the sentence is intended to make the House appear more reasonable than the Senate. Also, the Senate has NOT voted to accept or reject any of these agency specific bills. The second part of the sentence is no longer accurate as the Senate has not offered any bills since the shutdown began. According to the Congressional record, the senate has not actually voted on ANYTHING since the shutdown began at midnight Oct 1.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_113_1.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.244.253 (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed. That language just goes too far.

--Dlawbailey (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Shutdown History--days of the week
It might be informative to add days of the week to the dates in the table with the shutdown history. By my recollection, many of the briefer shutdowns were where funding lapsed at the end of the day on a Friday, and was restored by Monday morning, so the vast majority of goverment operations were unaffected. 205.254.147.8 (talk) 12:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Many of these appear to be symbolic in name only with no actual shutdown activity. It would be useful if they could actually be classified according to some measure of disruption to government services. 63.249.87.236 (talk) 02:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Shutdown Effects on Science Research
The effects that the government shutdown is having on scientific research is being documented in the "Shutdown" section of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in their Scientific Community page.72.203.142.175 (talk) 15:35, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

House clean bill
I removed "House offered bills that do not include language to defund or delay the PPACA", since it was not supported by the source, and I didn't see that anywhere else either. The source specifically said, "Boehner subsequently indicated that a "clean" bill—meaning one that doesn't feature provisions to delay or defund Obamacare—is "not going to happen."", which is the opposite of what it said here. I accidentally saved without completing the edit summary, so putting it here instead. Superm401 - Talk 08:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like it was subtle vandalism from an IP. I've put it back in the correct order. Superm401 - Talk 08:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Update and Expansion
I'm going to slightly update the "Effects" section of this page. It looks like the last edit was completed in 2013, and new data on how minimal the effects actually were has emerged. TheMacDaniel (talk) 21:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)