What happens during a US government shutdown?

Ten things to expect.

At midnight local time on Monday night the US government went into shutdown for the first time in 17 years as Congress failed to agree new budget. So what happens when Government spending stops?

1. 800,000 public sector workers are sent home

Around 800,000 of the 2.1 million people working in the public sector will be sent home with no pay. There is no guarantee that they will be compensated for these lost earnings, although they were following shutdowns of 1995-1996. Those who will be retained are “essential staff” like the police and law enforcement officers, immigration services, those overseeing nuclear safety, dams and power lines, and rescue services.

2. Rubbish collection stops in Washington DC

Because Washington DC is a federal district that needs permission from Congress to spend money, services like rubbish collection, street cleaning and libraries will be shut down. Schools and public transport will continue running, however.

3. National parks, museums and galleries will shut

The US’s national parks and museums, galleries, zoos and landmarks run by federal government will close, including the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island in New York, the National Zoo, and the Washington Monument.  Only essential staff will go into work, included those needed to protect “life and property” and, in the case of the National Zoo, to feed the animals. Holidaymakers currently camping in National Parks will be given 48 hours to leave, while day-trippers will be made to leave immediately.

4. Air travel continues as usual, but passport applications may not be processed

Air traffic control and airport security staff will continue to work, and airport authorities have said travellers needn’t worry about longer waits at security. Passport applications will continue to be accepted until money runs out. If this shutdown last as long as the shutdowns in 1996, this means at some point applications will stop being processed. In the 1990s this affected 200,000 applicants.

5. Citizens face administrative delays

Staff cutbacks at the Internal Revenue Services mean audits will stop and no one will be able to assist if people have questions about their taxes. Benefits for pensioners and military veterans are likely to be delayed because of staff cutbacks. Permits for guns are unlikely to be processed, and more worryingly, small businesses applying for loans won’t have them processed.

6. The US economy suffers

The last shutdown was estimated to have cost the US government $1.5bn and Goldman Sachs believes a three-week shutdown could cut 0.9 per cent off GDP growth this quarter. The value of the US dollar has already fallen on the news.

7. Some Department of Health Services are shut down

Notably, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will be forced to cut back their services, so they will be less able to respond if there's a disease outbreak.

8. The military will keep working

On-duty military staff will carry on working, and an emergency bill passed two hours before the shutdown will protect their pay. Around half of civilian members of the defence forces won’t be reporting to work at all.

9. The post office will run as usual

The post office will continue to work, because it is funded by stamp sales and postage fees, and therefore not dependent on federal government cheques.

10. The squabbling politicians who triggered the crisis will still get paid

The salaries of senators, representatives, and President Barack Obama won’t be affected.

A sign indicates that the Lincoln Memorial and all national parks are closed from 1 October. Photo:Getty.

Sophie McBain is a freelance writer based in Cairo. She was previously an assistant editor at the New Statesman.

BBC screengrab
Show Hide image

Owen Smith is naïve if he thinks misogynist abuse in Labour started with Jeremy Corbyn

“We didn’t have this sort of abuse before Jeremy Corbyn became the leader.”

Owen Smith, the MP challenging Jeremy Corbyn in the Labour leadership contest, has told BBC News that the party’s nastier side is a result of its leader.

He said:

“I think Jeremy should take a little more responsibility for what’s going on in the Labour party. After all, we didn’t have this sort of abuse and intolerance, misogyny, antisemitism in the Labour party before Jeremy Corbyn became the leader.

“It’s now become something that is being talked about on television, on radio, and in newspapers. And Angela is right, it has been effectively licenced within the last nine months.

“We’re the Labour party. We’ve got to be about fairness, and tolerance, and equality. It’s in our DNA. So for us to be reduced to this infighting is awful. Now, I understand why people feel passionately about the future of our party – I feel passionately about that. I feel we’re in danger of splitting and being destroyed.

“But we can’t tolerate it. And it isn’t good enough for Jeremy simply to say he has threats too. Well, I’ve had death threats, I’ve had threats too, but I’m telling him, it’s got to be stamped out. We’ve got to have zero tolerance of this in the Labour party.”

While Smith’s conclusion is correct, his analysis is worryingly wrong.

Whether it is out of incompetence or an unwillingness to see the extent of the situation, Corbyn has done very little to stamp out abuse in his party, which has thus been allowed to escalate. It is fair enough of Smith to criticise him for his failure to stem the flow and punish the perpetrators.

It is also reasonable to condemn Corbyn's inability to stop allies like Chancellor John McDonnell and Unite leader Len McCluskey using violent language (“lynch mob”, “fucking useless”, etc) about their opponents, which feeds into the aggressive atmosphere. Though, as I’ve written before, Labour politicians on all sides have a duty to watch their words.

But it’s when we see how Smith came to the point of urging Corbyn to take more responsibility that we should worry. Smith confidently argues that there wasn’t “this sort of abuse and intolerance, misogyny, antisemitism” in the party before Corbyn was voted in. (I assume when he says “this sort”, he means online, death threats, letters, and abuse at protests. The sort that has been high-profile recently).

This is naïve. Anyone involved in Labour politics – or anything close to it – for longer than Corbyn’s leadership could tell Smith that misogyny and antisemitism have been around for a pretty long time. Perhaps because Smith isn’t the prime target, he hasn’t been paying close enough attention. Sexism wasn’t just invented nine months ago, and we shouldn’t let the belief set in that it did – then it simply becomes a useful tool for Corbyn’s detractors to bash him with, rather than a longstanding, structural problem to solve.

Smith's lament that “it’s now become something that is being talked about” is also jarring. Isnt it a good thing that such abuse is now being called out so publicly, and closely scrutinised by the media?

In my eyes, this is a bit like the argument that Corbyn has lost Labour’s heartlands. No, he hasn’t. They have been slowly slipping away for years – and we all noticed when Labour took a beating in the last general election (way before Corbyn had anything to do with the Labour leadership). As with the abuse, Corbyn hasn’t done much to address this, and his inaction has therefore exacerbated it. But if we tell ourselves that it started with him, then we’re grasping for a very, very simple solution (remove Corbyn = automatic win in the North, and immediate erasure of misogyny and antisemitism) to a problem we have catastrophically failed to analyse.

Anoosh Chakelian is deputy web editor at the New Statesman.