Shutdown

How long can the majority of the government remain shut down, with the parts that are operating being run by people who are not being paid?

I hear the IRS is calling back 60 percent of its workforce (unpaid) to make sure tax refunds go out, but they won't be doing audits, which bring in revenue. But Interior is also continuing to auction off land for oil extraction, because that generates revenue and is therefore essential. How inconsistent is that?

And all of the federal grant programs for research are grinding to a halt. Cancer research, of course, but more than that. From Phillip Attiba Goff, professor of criminal justice at John Jay College in New York City, who researches and works with police departments on use of force:

So, I got a call this morning letting me know that "the shutdown has hit you." Say what now?

Turns out that money from the National Science Foundation is paid out quarterly. Here's what that means: For many academic staff in the bench and social sciences, they are paid off of grants. Federal grants are often viewed as the most prestigious, which means some of the most important science pays vital staff off of federal grants. NIH, NSF, Labor, Education. All of it. That means the folks working to cure cancer and the folks, like me, working to reduce urban violence often pay key personnel this way. But with the shutdown, the invoices stop being filled.

For rich institutions, they have enough reserves to cover the gap in funding. But for poorer institutions...

So, this morning, I found out that we will not be able to hire new staff or pay for non-salary expenses off of our NSF money until the shutdown ends. If the shutdown extends for longer...we may not be able to pay existing staff. Now, to be clear, we're fine. We have other cash that covers us. But we are a rare commodity in that way. For most of my colleagues, that's it. No new hires. No travel, lab, or project expenses.

For many labs, this would cripple their ability to function. And if they are not fortunate enough to have a diversity of funding sources (and most are lucky to have one source), then it could mean that they can pay personnel...but have nothing for them to do.

The short-term consequence is that there will be a non-trivial disturbance of scientific production this year. But longer term, with the U.S. already so hostile to immigrants, popular science, and now academic science...folks are just going to leave. I have three colleagues who told me in December they are leaving top-tier institutions for the EU and Canada for these reasons. And I've been at academic conferences where international scholars were functionally blocked from attending due to US immigration policy.

While U.S. international economic, industrial, and technological competition has ebbed and flowed, our most consistent pillar of excellence has been higher education (for all its many many warts). This administration won't care if it debilitates these engines for innovation.

Just figured some folks would want to know. There are few areas of the country that remain completely free from the influence of the government shutdown. And academia is not hit nearly as hard as most. But the long term damage of this wholly avoidable mess... Competent adults would not let this happen.

Not to mention people losing their housing because the funding mechanism has ground to a halt, and the coming end of SNAP benefits and who knows how many other essential supports for people. The national parks are open, unstaffed, and some utter jackasses have chainsawed the Joshua trees.

The Nation describes this partial, targeted shutdown as a soft coup, undermining parts of government that are just as legitimate as the ones that remain (albeit staffed by unpaid workers). I don't think I would use that term, but it sure is easier if your goal is to hamstring government rather than do the hard work of improving things for everyone.