When the rule of law means nothing | US federal government shutdown

USPS "forever" priced stamps have the forever marked through for image reproduction purposes.  But the strike through is an ironic comment on the state of liberty and democracy in the US today.

As a national we are truly f*.  Ronald Brownstein opines that the Democrats are going to lose on the shutdown because it should be about the loss of democracy, not health care cuts ("This Shutdown May Help Democrats, But Not Democracy").  I think it's both, even if the messaging is on health care..  

But when there is no support by Republicans in Congress or the US Supreme Court to enforce the rule of law, or to restore old norms about country versus ideology, and when the average person doesn't think about the rule of law or democratic norms all that much, what can be done?

The messages on some of the federal government websites are over the top and certainly seem like a violation of the Hatch Act ("Government agencies are blaming the shutdown on Democrats. Ethics experts say it could be against the law," Politico).  But the first Trump government proved the Hatch Act had no teeth.  So again, norm led following of rules means nothing to Trumpers.

Although I do find it interesting that not all government agency websites include incendiary language about the Democrats.  E.g., Homeland Security, Energy, Treasury, Interior to name a few.

While USDA is the worst, HUD is pretty bad too.

I love the message.  Trump is the guy who cut medical assistance to fund tax cuts for billionaires, and in the realm of USDA, food aid both within the US ("What Happens to School Lunches in the MAHA Era?," New Yorker) and as foreign aid.  Tariffs and trade wars have put significant sectors of farming products at risk, like soybeans ("Farmers fear they have soybeans ‘nobody wants’," Marshall Independent), and many farmers fear going bankrupt.

How is that supporting the agricultural sector?

HUD had an incendiary message before the shutdown ("HUD website blames looming shutdown on ‘Radical Left’," Federal News Network), and one not so great

In housing the Trump Administration aims to cut support to low income people receiving housing subsidies ("Millions Could Lose Housing Aid Under Trump Plan," ProPublica, "Trump Admin Makes Major Update on Section 8 Housing: What to Know," Newsweek), for homelessness services ("Trump admin looks at deep cuts to homeless housing program," Politico), and in housing development programs ("The Trump Administration Has Proposed $27 Billion in Cuts by Block Granting Housing Assistance. That Could Worsen the Housing Affordability Crisis," Urban Institute). 

How is that helping the needy? Especially combined with cuts to medical care and food assistance?

Meanwhile, "HUD secretary ‘not worried at all’ about violating law with website blaming shutdown on Democrats," The Hill.

Is DC screwed economically because of Trump and the Republicans? Probably.

 I'd say yes.  Moving agencies and firing employees reduces the demand for office space and housing in DC proper.  The growth in the federal government after 9/11 definitely benefited the city in terms of residents, even though much of the business of cybersecurity is in the suburbs.

-- "High anxiety: What losing 100,000 federal jobs could mean for the local economy," Washington Business Journal

Although in his first term he was successful in doing this with only a couple agencies, even though it came with crippling those agencies in terms of talent unwilling to locate, especially the USDA's Economic Research Service moving to Kansas City, but also BLM to Grand Junction, Colorado.

Although this has been a problem for the last couple decades, as Republicans have been uninterested in investing in federal agencies, especially those located in DC proper.  Plus the Maryland and Virginia delegations constantly aiming to move agencies to their jurisdictions.

From the article:

But one of the potentially most destabilizing and long-term changes would be if the soon-to-be president follows through on his goal to reduce federal employment in this region — a bedrock of the local economy where roughly one in 11 people work directly for the federal government and many more work as contractors.

Some 370,000 people across D.C., suburban Maryland and Northern Virginia are federal employees. Federal civilian employment in D.C. alone is 162,144 as of December — more than any other U.S. territory or state, according to data from the Congressional Research Service. Roughly 27% of wage and salary income earned in D.C. is from federal work, said Erica Williams, executive director of the D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute.

...Trump and allies from his incoming administration have said they’d like to cut spending on federal employment. That includes relocating roughly 100,000 jobs out of the high-cost D.C. region to states with lower cost of living and possibly closing some agencies altogether, such as the Department of Education. Some of his inner circle such as those leading the Department of Government Efficiency are also looking into consolidating agencies that regulate banks, according to The Wall Street Journal.

,,, It’s likely there would be multiple layers of challenges to any attempt by Trump to drastically reduce the federal workforce in Washington or elsewhere. He would need congressional approval in order to shut down an agency. A vote that would have eliminated the Department of Education failed to garner the needed 60 votes to pass in the Senate in 2023.

Uncertainty won't help either.  People will decide not to take government jobs.  It will definitely reduce office demand regardless.  It's hard to say about the residential market.  Many 10,000s of jobs would have to be eliminated to make a difference, especially since housing demand remains greater than supply.  This will have long term negative impact on "talent attraction".

Don't forget the multiplier effect.  Each primary job generates additional support jobs.  I don't know what the multiplier effect is for "paper pushers" (information coordination) versus doing jobs.  For example one economist estimates for "innovation jobs," the multiplier effect is 5 ("The Multiplier Effect of Innovation Jobs," Sloan Management Review).

Diversifying DC's Economy.  For a long time and for obvious reasons DC has been focused on the federal government as its primary economic engine, along with the trade associations, law firms, lobbyists, and related groups that seek benefits, provide services, etc.

DC proper needs to continue to focus on diversifying its economy.  I've written before that the government functions in the city proper tend to be information coordination, not doing, which has less positive impact.  E.g., when Obamacare was created DC economic planners said well, we can do electronic health records as a cluster etc. (note that the big player in health care is the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services which is based in Baltimore).  But health informatics isn't part of what HHS proper does.

Military.  In the past, I've mentioned how the area economy is divided into military related and not military related  ("The East-West Divide | DC area regional economic development: anchors and where they are placed matter + airports | But military spending matters the most," 2021).  NoVA has a stronger economy because it is more centered on the military..  The strong IT cluster is broader than the military, but is still heavily focused on it. 

Engineering/Higher education.  DC should work to leverage the higher education institutions in the city, especially around engineering ("Naturally occurring innovation districts | Technology districts and the tech sector,"), but they haven't really done it.  For example, comparably to how Bloomberg created the Cornell Tech initiative in NYC ("Cornell Tech’s economic impact on NYC to double by 2030," Cornell Chronicle, "Better leveraging higher education institutions in cities and counties: Greensboro; Spokane; Mesa; Phoenix; Montgomery County, Maryland; Washington, DC,"). From the Cornell article:

A new analysis finds that Cornell Tech, its alumni and its 115 startups achieved $768 million in total economic impact and supported 2,800 jobs in New York City in the 2023-24 fiscal year.

According to the report, from economic development firm HR&A Advisors, Cornell Tech is projected to generate $1.5 billion in annual economic impact while supporting 7,000 jobs by 2030, affirming its reputation as the most effective economic development project undertaken by city government in recent decades.

“New York City has been a consistent draw for ambitious and intelligent people from around the world,” said Greg Morrisett, the Jack and Rilla Neafsey Dean and Vice Provost of Cornell Tech. “Cornell Tech has created a novel academic and entrepreneurial environment that brings new tech talent to the city who go on to become industry leaders and builders who are driving our city’s workforce and technology industry.

Corporate headquarters recruitment.  Before covid I thought the city could compete for "back to the city" corporate headquarters, but those still seem to be focused in the DC area on the suburbs, e.g., Boeing or Hilton ("Could bringing premier regionally headquartered business enterprises to the Pennsylvania Avenue Corridor be key to its renewal and revitalization?").

Health education and biotechnology.  In the series about better leveraging health care east of the river, the second piece was repositioning St. Elizabeths campus as a center for biotechnology research and graduate health education ("Part Two: Creating a graduate health and biotechnology research initiative on the St. Elizabeths campus"), but learning more about what happened in Ann Arbor, after Pfizer closed its research center there, made me realize that it's a lot easier "to start from the ground up" when you already have products in the pipeline   ("How the closure of a Pfizer research center in Ann Arbor, Michigan led to the development of a more robust and independent biotech sector").  Children's Hospital got a portion of the Walter Reed campus to do this kind of research too, but I haven't heard much about it since.

Maglev as a way to rebrand the Central Business District.  I also argued that maglev to the central business district could be a way to strengthen the appeal of locating business in Washington, but the city government was oppositional (""DC, Transformational Projects Action Planning, and the Baltimore-Washington Maglev project"). 

In short, many opportunities but few taken. 

You don't have to bash the federal government to make the case for local action

Former Republican Governor of Indiana Mitch Daniels writes a column for the Washington Post.  He takes conservative positions but he's not a wack job.  That doesn't mean that he doesn't mislead when he writes.

Volunteers planting a tree in 2018.  Getty Images photo.

His current column, "How philanthropy can work without trying to save the world," extols the value of community foundations and philanthropy for taking on local projects.  

He also cites a David Brooks column in the New York Times, "The Localist Revolution," on the value of localism.

Each takes the opportunity to position localism as far superior to federal action.  

But the federal government doesn't deal with rehabilitation of local parks or planting trees--well, the US Forest Service just provided to a lot of communities grants to do just that, "Announcing urban and community forestry funding"--and similarly supra localized projects.  OTOH, community foundations aren't in the position to fund transit systems or run military bases.

(And actually, not unlike the USFS program, the federal government does a lot of pass through funding through states to support local action through programs like the Federal Historic Preservation Fund, Land and Water Conservation Fund, and the Recreational Trails Program.)

The New Deal demonstrated that the federal government was/is capable of accomplishing great things, investing in the nation through investment in community-serving facilities, from rural electrification to building state and local parks via the Civilian Conservation Corps, which was a large jobs program, but it needed projects to do--building college dormitories, municipal buildings, parks, etc. was a good way to keep people employed.

But now, the ideology of neoliberalism ("Neoliberalism – the ideology at the root of all our problems," Guardian) denigrates government in favor of private action.  Although, while Reagan implemented the ideology on steroids, arguably it started with Jimmy Carter (deregulation of the airlines, etc.) and it's an area of rare bipartisanship.

And in the US, the Republican party has degenerated into an anti-government, anti-public investment stance that makes positive action by the federal government less likely.  

This trickles down and shapes the electorate in ways that make many less inclined to support community initiatives and working together on projects of common interest ("In the land of self-defeat," New York Times).  

George Monbiot argues it's about values and an extrinsic versus intrinsic orientation ("To beat Trump, we need to know why Americans keep voting for him. Psychologists may have the answer," Guardian).  Extrinsics take, intrinsics give.  From the article:

We are not born with our values. They are shaped by the cues and responses we receive from other people and the prevailing mores of our society. They are also moulded by the political environment we inhabit. If people live under a cruel and grasping political system, they tend to normalise and internalise it, absorbing its dominant claims and translating them into extrinsic values. This, in turn, permits an even crueller and more grasping political system to develop. 

If, by contrast, people live in a country in which no one becomes destitute, in which social norms are characterised by kindness, empathy, community and freedom from want and fear, their values are likely to shift towards the intrinsic end. This process is known as policy feedback, or the “values ratchet”. The values ratchet operates at the societal and the individual level: a strong set of extrinsic values often develops as a result of insecurity and unfulfilled needs. These extrinsic values then generate further insecurity and unfulfilled needs.

Furthermore, the federal government, hampered by underfunding, does fail more regularly--albeit under Republican presidents more than Democrats, e.g., the Bush Administration response to Hurricane Katrina, or the Trump Administration response to covid (Trump basically killed 400,000 people) and its hurricane response in Puerto Rico (studies say at least 8,000 people died).

A good example is how the Republicans in Congress are outraged by re-funding the IRS, so it can collect the income taxes people should pay.  They'd prefer the wealthy blow off their obligations.

Neither Daniels nor Brooks write much about Republicans as obstructionists to quality of life and public investment in their states and communities. 

In fact they mostly vote against such bills and then fire off press releases and social media posts about how they brought various federally funded projects to their districts and states.

P.S. Republican-controlled states tend to have reduced quality of life as measured by life expectancy and other indicators ("People in Republican Counties Have Higher Death Rates Than Those in Democratic Counties," Scientific American, "Data shows conservative policies on health, guns and more increase mortality," St. Louis Post-Dispatch).  From the P-D:

Meanwhile, researchers with the University of Washington analyzed political policies on a liberal-to-conservative scale, then measured mortality rates on a range of issues. Some newly empowered Missouri pot smokers might find it unnerving that the study found a correlation between conservative marijuana policies and lower mortality rates. But on virtually every other policy metric — health care, criminal justice, environmental protection, gun safety, labor rights, tobacco taxes — conservative policies and higher mortality rates went hand in hand.

====

Mailing envelope, 1960, US Forest Service packet of materials sent to a women's club in Ohio.   The envelope is in bad shape but the other materials are in excellent condition.

Recently I've been collecting (more) ephemera related to parks on various topics.  I came across the most fascinating set of US Forest Service materials from 1960.  

I already knew that "women's clubs" of various types, both when women couldn't vote and/or tended to be "housewives," were key elements in local civic affairs.  As women entered the workforce these organizations tended to wither away, with the major exception of the League of Women Voters.

The director of the Forest Service, Gifford Pinchot, who later became director of the National Park Service, was a proto-feminist in part because of his wife, a suffragette and activist.  Both the Forest Service and NPS cultivated support through women's clubs across the country.

USFS published and distributed materials specifically designed for these groups.

It fits in with my belief that schools, libraries, parks and other public-facing units of local government can be loci for civic engagement, just like community foundations.

"The Wall," negotiation, compromise and the federal government shutdown

After Newt Gingrich and Donald Graham, former publisher of the Washington Post, wrote an op-ed ("Fund the Wall and save the Dreamers") suggesting the Democrats in the House accede to $5 billion in funding for a wall along the US-Mexican border in return for legislation legalizing "Dreamers", the Washington Post and others in the media have suggested this is a good idea.

I don't think so.

The Wall is really really odious.  Trump really really wants it.

I will never read "The Art of the Deal," but it's obvious that when there is such asymmetricity, you ask for a lot more than one thing.  One for one is hardly a good enough trade.  The Democrats "have Trump over a barrel."

I'd demand a whole lot more:

- an increase in the federal gasoline excise tax
- ending plans to reduce requirements for motor vehicle fleet efficiency requirents
- stop the artificially induced delays for funding transit
- renewing and making permanent the Land and Water Conservation Fund
- ending plans to reduce environmental controls on coal plants
- funding promotion and sales of Obamacare
- putting in some kind of restrictions on stock buybacks
- eliminating the exemption for full taxation on "carried interest"
- releasing Trump tax returns
- dealing with Trump's emoluments problem
etc.

To get those things, which in the current situation are almost impossible, such as increasing the gas tax, which hasn't been increased in 25 years, it's worth wasting $5 billion on a terrible thing with limited return on investment.

=========
From "11 Winning Negotiation Tactics From Donald Trump's 'The Art of the Deal'", Inc. Magazine:

1. Think big

"I like thinking big. I always have. To me it's very simple: if you're going to be thinking anyway, you might as well think big."

5. Use your leverage

"The worst thing you can possibly do in a deal is seem desperate to make it. That makes the other guy smell blood, and then you're dead."