“What does shutdown theater actually cost taxpayers? Lost Productivity, for starters. The 2013 shutdown cost $2.5 billion in back pay to 850,000 furloughed employees who missed a combined 6.6 million work days. All that productivity was permanently lost, since they were paid for work not performed.
Shutdowns also result in special expenses specifically related to preparing for shutdowns. Before each shutdown, agencies must develop detailed contingency plans outlining which functions will continue and which will stop. This pulls hundreds of thousands of employees from their regular duties to document procedures that everyone hopes will never be used.
Shutdowns cause economic disruption. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the 2018-2019 shutdown reduced GDP by $11 billion in all, including $3 billion that will never be recovered. The 2013 shutdown cost the economy $24 billion and 120,000 private sector jobs.
Finally, shutdowns cause a great deal of administrative drama. Beyond direct costs, shutdowns can delay tax refunds (almost $4 billion in 2013), halt fee collections, and force the government to pay penalty interest on late payments. These indirect costs often exceed the supposed savings from furloughing workers. (White House Office of Management and Budget, November 2013)”
“It’s true that taxes distort behavior, and that America’s income-based taxes—especially the corporate tax—are among the most damaging varieties. Economists prefer consumption taxes, which leave income alone until it’s spent, sparing savings and investment from double (or triple) taxation.
Leaving aside their protectionist nature, if tariffs did that, it might make sense to think about substituting them for other, worse forms of taxation. But they don’t.
Take an actual consumption tax—the value-added-tax—which is applied uniformly to domestic and imported goods, rebated at the border for exports, and structured to avoid double-taxing investment. Tariffs, on the other hand, single out imports, which account for only about 15 percent of U.S. consumption. Different goods from different countries also face different rates. Thus, they are neither broad-based, nor neutral or transparent. They’re just an additional tax that tries to push buyers toward less-preferred products.
Worse, tariffs fall heavily on capital inputs like machines and other equipment. More than half of U.S. imports are raw materials, intermediate goods, or capital equipment—things we need to build other things. As the American Enterprise Institute’s Kyle Pomerleau notes, this makes tariffs more, not less, distortive than our current capital income taxes.
The latter allow firms to deduct investments in machinery and equipment, lowering the effective tax rate from what’s on paper. Tariffs provide no such deduction. That makes investing in U.S. capabilities—precisely what spurs productivity and wages—more expensive. Far from being a relatively tolerable consumption tax, tariffs are an inefficient, arbitrary surcharge on growth.
Tariffs fail another principle of good taxation: stability. A serious tax system is predictable, allowing businesses and households to plan ahead. Tariffs are imposed unilaterally under statutes like Section 301 or even emergency powers. As recent experience shows, they can be, and often are, reversed overnight without any assurance they won’t soon reappear. That’s not a reliable revenue source or incentive for businesses to proceed with confidence.
Finally, tariffs invite carveouts and favoritism. Politically connected firms routinely secure exemptions, exclusions, or special treatment, drastically narrowing the tax base. Since April’s “Liberation Day,” exclusions have sheltered goods worth more than $1 trillion while other goods got hammered. A tax code riddled with loopholes secured through Congress is bad enough; a tariff regime where lobbyists compete for carveouts so quickly and effectively is worse.
…
In the most recent fiscal year, the federal government collected about $2.4 trillion from the individual income tax. That’s 49 percent of federal tax revenue. The Tax Foundation’s calculation for 2021 shows that collections from those earning less than $200,000 amount to $737.5 billion annually. There’s also $430 billion brought in from the corporate income tax in fiscal year 2024.
Extrapolating from the Treasury Department’s duty collection for July, Trump’s sweeping new tariffs might bring in as much as $360 billion this year—significantly higher that the pre-Trump era collection of $80 billion. Grandiose plans to do away with most people’s income taxes would mean raising tariff rates far higher than even Trump wants, and without all the carveouts. Then, we’d need to hope for the impossible—namely, that the tariffs don’t kill off a ton of economic activity.
Tariffs are not a realistic tax base. They’re among the worst taxes imaginable—narrow, arbitrary, unstable, and regressive. They tax investment more than consumption. They reward lobbying over efficiency. And the revenue they raise is but a fraction of annual government spending.”
“Republicans once talked seriously about aligning taxes and spending. They cared about economic distortion, simplicity, and broadening the tax base. Now, too many just want the sugar rush of tax cuts without fiscal discipline. Meanwhile, Democrats want to vastly expand the state and pretend that billionaires alone can foot the bill. Both sides are wrong. The math doesn’t work, and the morality of the reckless spending is worse.
Those who want to frame this bill as pro-growth are dreaming. They’re relying on unrealistic economic assumptions about a short-run bump to justify the consequences of long-term debt increases—and banking on cost-disguising budget gimmicks that nobody takes seriously.”
“The Senate minority leader, both privately to his caucus Thursday and in a floor speech shortly after, said he would vote to advance a GOP-written stopgap to fund the government through September. He said Republicans’ spending bill is “very bad.” But he argued the “potential for a shutdown has consequences for America that are much, much worse” and would empower President Donald Trump and Elon Musk to further gut federal agencies.”
“It took an all-out lobbying blitz that involved promises of future spending cuts, a scattering of presidential threats and 11th-hour policy concessions involving tariffs and visas for Afghan refugees. But in a 217-213 vote, the House passed a seven-month funding patch without needing a single Democrat. Republicans planned to immediately leave Washington and hand Senate Democrats a stark dilemma with the threat of a government shutdown looming early Saturday morning.”
“Trump’s new budget blueprint, which is also known as a resolution, does three things.
First, it calls for extending the president’s 2017 tax cuts, which would otherwise expire at the end of the year, at a cost of $4 trillion over the next decade. It also makes room for another $500 billion in tax cuts Trump talked about on the campaign trail, such as no tax on tips, for a grand total of $4.5 trillion.
Second, the blueprint greenlights modest spending increases targeted toward immigration enforcement (up to $110 billion), customs and border protection (up to $90 billion) and military involvement in border security (up to $100 million) — top Trump priorities.
And finally, at the behest of conservative deficit hawks, the resolution mandates $2 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years to partially offset new border spending and the trillions in revenue lost to Trump’s tax cuts. (Even then, the new budget would still directly add $2.8 trillion to the deficit.)
For now, Trump’s budget blueprint doesn’t say which programs will be slashed; instead, it instructs specific House committees to cut specific amounts from the programs under their jurisdiction.”
“The permanent staffers who are fired or taking the buyout include people who collect fees at park entrances, maintenance workers who clean park facilities and rangers who patrol the backcountry and rescue lost and injured hikers.
Adding to the operational chaos for Park Service supervisors, the Trump administration in January notified thousands of seasonal workers who staff America’s 433 national parks and historical sites during peak seasons that their job offers for the 2025 season had been “rescinded.” The move set off panic in the ranks of park employees, and threw into limbo the vacation plans of hundreds of millions of people who visit the parks each year.”
” In a new report, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that states (including Washington, D.C.) had spent just 45 percent of the funding they had received through the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds program, a $350 billion line item within the $2 trillion American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), which passed in March 2021. Local governments had reported spending just 38 percent of their funds received through the same program.”
…
“”The new GAO study confirms that the ARPA spending was not needed,” Chris Edwards, chair of fiscal studies at the Cato Institute, tells Reason. “By the fall of 2020, it was clear that the states were in good fiscal shape and not facing Armageddon as many policymakers were claiming. They did not need federal handouts.””
…
“Before the American Rescue Plan passed, there was widespread skepticism about the proposed bailout, in part because three other pandemic-era spending bills had already sent about $360 billion in aid to states and localities.”
…
“In a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper published in June 2022, a trio of researchers found that pandemic-era aid distributed to state and local governments had cost taxpayers about $855,000 per job saved. The stimulus spending had only “a modest impact on government employment and has not translated into detectable gains for private businesses or for states’ overall economic recoveries,” concluded University of California, San Diego economists Jeffrey Clemens and Philip Hoxie and American Enterprise Institute senior fellow Stan Veuger, the paper’s three authors.”
…
“Iowa spent $12.5 million of its $4.5 billion cut of the federal bailout on a new baseball stadium near the Field of Dreams movie set. Because that’s an essential public health issue, of course.”
…
“Michigan “reported spending $25.6 million on a travel marketing and
promotional campaign,” allegedly to “respond to the impacts of COVID-19 on tourism.” Louisiana, meanwhile, reported spending $115 million to construct roads and bridges.
Tourism is nice and roads are in some ways an essential government function, but the emergency COVID spending was meant to help states address an immediate public health crisis—or to offset the costs of it. It’s not at all clear how highway construction was a victim of the pandemic ”
“Fitch Ratings..downgraded the U.S. government’s credit rating due in part to Congress’ erosion in governance. Indeed, year after year, we see the same political theater unfold: last-minute deals, deficits, and, all too often, the passage of gigantic omnibus spending bills without proper scrutiny, along with repeated debt ceiling fights and threats of shutdown.
But these are just symptoms of a budget-making process that remains in desperate need of reform. With legislators chronically delinquent about following their own rules, the change may need to be as much cultural as procedural. No matter how good the rules are, they’re useless if politicians ignore them. And in a world where politicians are rarely told no when it comes to creating or expanding programs, most simply refuse to have their hands tied or behave as responsible stewards of your dollars.”
…
“What we need is a comprehensive budget process under which programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are no longer permitted to grow without meaningful oversight. Combined with other mandatory, more-or-less automatic spending items, they make up more than 70 percent of the budget. Thus, they must be included in the regular budget process and subjected to regular review. Only then will our elected representatives be forced to stop ignoring the side of the budget that requires their attention the most.”
…
“Enter a “Base Closure and Realignment Commission (BRAC)”-style fiscal commission, an idea promoted by the Cato Institute’s Romina Boccia. This commission would be staffed with independent experts appointed by the president. It would be “tasked with a clear and attainable objective, such as stabilizing the growth in the debt at no more than the GDP of the country, and empowered with fast-track authority, such that its recommendations become self-executing upon presidential approval, without Congress having to affirmatively vote on their enactment,” Boccia explains.
I’m uneasy about delegating the president power to appoint “experts.” Unfortunately, Congress has proven they will never seriously address the problem unless forced to. The idea is not unprecedented. Congress has already delegated a lot of its legislative power to administrative agencies and the executive branch. It’s also how the political class dealt with the closures of military facilities after the Cold War—another set of hard choices they refused to make on their own.
What’s more, Congress would retain some veto power. If they disapprove of the proposal, the House and Senate can reject it through a joint resolution within a specified period. Whether it’s the best solution to address our fiscal problems remains to be seen, but it’s worth considering.”
…
“Making continuing appropriations automatic in case of a lapse could remove the threat of shutdowns.”