The Impact Of The 1990’s Shutdown

Clinton Shutdown

The last time that the federal government was shutdown as in the 90’s.  President Clinton and Speaker Gingrich didn’t see eye to eye.  The shutdown came in two parts with the longest such disruption lasting 3 weeks.

Who paid the price?

It’s widely understood that the republican’s lost.  Scott Erb even has a post as such:

The first shut down was from November 14-19, 1995,  followed by a second from December 16, 1995 to January 6, 1996.  The Republicans suffered politically from that shutdown…

Indeed.  Republicans suffered politically.  However, what would that mean?  To me, a political loss would manifest itself in any number of ways:

  1. Loss of Presidential Election
  2. Loss of seats in the House
  3. Loss of seats in the Senate
  4. Loss of policy debate

A very strong case can be made that the democrats won on point #1.  Clinton went on  win his second term.  However, the debate is much less clear after that.

Take the House for example.  The make-up in the years before and after the shutdown:

1993-1995  258 Democrats with 176 Republicans

1995-1997  204 Democrats with 230 Republicans

1997-1999  207 Democrats with 227 Republicans

The Senate?

1993-1995  57 Democrats with 43 Republicans

1995-1997  48 Democrats with 52 Republicans

1997-1999  45 Democrats with 55 Republicans

 

And finally the policy.

The republicans balanced the budget and won welfare reform.

I’d say that the win goes to the republicans.

7 responses to “The Impact Of The 1990’s Shutdown

  1. Hey, if the Republicans will agree like Gingrich to a mix of tax increases and budget cuts, I think a real deal can be made!

    • Hey, if the Republicans will agree like Gingrich to a mix of tax increases and budget cuts, I think a real deal can be made!

      It would take negotiation on the part of an intransigent President!

    • Why should the GOP offer a deal when even you, Erb, recommend that the President not negotiate.

      • I think his point is that Newt Gingrich was willing to actually negotiate policy, while the current Tea Party faction makes Grover Norquist look like Chamberlain.

      • Why should the GOP offer a deal when even you, Erb, recommend that the President not negotiate.

        They should not “take a deal” unless the President sits down at the negotiation table.

        Scott betrays his real internal self – negotiation is good.

  2. It’s fair to say Bob Dole was a weak opponent to Clinton, and that helped Bill C. a lot.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *