FP Explainer

Why Don’t Other Countries Have Government Shutdowns?

It's a uniquely American form of gridlock.

With the clock ticking down to an April 8 deadline and President Barack Obama and congressional leaders unable to resolve disputes over abortion funding and changes to the Clean Air Act, it appears more and more likely that the U.S. federal government is headed for a shutdown. If the shutdown were to continue through Monday, hundreds of thousands of federal workers deemed nonessential would be furloughed. Essential services, such as national defense, would continue, but soldiers would likely not be paid. Other important services such as benefits for veterans and clinical trials at the National Institutes of Health would also probably be suspended. Do other countries ever have to deal with this?

No. Other countries may have coups, revolutions, and collapses, but a government so deadlocked it simply ceases to function seems to be an exclusively American phenomenon. Several features of the U.S. political system -- a strong executive branch with veto power, the Senate filibuster -- make the sort of deadlock we're seeing now more likely. In a parliamentary system, used by the vast majority of democracies in Europe and Asia, the budget process is similar on paper: The prime minister prepares a "government budget" and submits it to parliament for a vote. But if parliament rejects that budget, that's generally considered a sign that the government no longer has the confidence of parliament and has to resign.

This is exactly what happened in Portugal last month, when Prime Minister Jose Socrates stepped down following the rejection of a new budget featuring harsh austerity measures. The country is currently under the leadership of a caretaker government, until new elections can be held and a new government is formed -- which will presumably try to pass its own pared-down budget. However, just because a country with a parliamentary system is "without a government" doesn't mean that government services stop. Thanks to robust and apolitical civil services, most governments can keep operating no matter who's in power. Belgium hasn't had a government since June 2010, but, for the most part, the trains still run on time, the trash gets picked up, and budgets are even passed.

U.S.-style shutdowns are theoretically possibly in a parliamentary system if a budget is rejected and the government doesn't step down -- but they never actually occur. There were fears not long ago that if Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan's government proved unable to pass a budget by the start of the 2011 fiscal year in April, payments to civil servants and some government administrative services could be suspended. But the crisis was eventually averted when the budget passed in the wake of last month's deadly earthquake. Battles over a series of related spending bills are still pending. 

Even governments that are structured more along American lines, with strong executive braches, don't seem to have budget disputes so fraught that they shut down. Brazil started 2008 with no budget after former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva's spending plans were rejected by Congress, but there were no disruptions to government services. (Swine flu did succeed in shutting down most of Mexico's public services in 2009.)

In fact, the shutdown has only been a feature of U.S. politics for the last 30 years. The Anti-Deficiency Act, originally enacted in 1884, prohibits federal agencies from conducting activities or entering into contracts that haven't been fully funded by congressional appropriations. But for most of the country's history, federal agencies simply continued operating during funding gap periods while trying to minimize unnecessary expenditures, believing that the law didn't intend for them to shut down entirely.

In 1980, however, Jimmy Carter's attorney general, Benjamin Civiletti, issued an opinion interpreting the act more narrowly to require that agencies suspend operations until a new appropriation was passed by Congress. Since then, there have been five shutdowns: two under Ronald Reagan that lasted for just a few hours, one under George H.W. Bush that conveniently fell over a holiday weekend, and two under Bill Clinton that lasted for five and 21 days -- during which an estimated 800,000 federal employees were furloughed. A number of state government shutdowns have also taken place. In 1990, Congress passed legislation to ensure that vital services such as law enforcement and defense keep operating during funding gaps.  

As with the current crisis, Congress has often put off government shutdowns through the passage of temporary funding bills called continuing resolutions. Some reform proposals have suggested making the passage of these resolutions automatic during funding gap periods. This might be a relief to thousands of federal employees and those who depend on their services -- but would be a real setback to one uniquely American tool of political brinksmanship.

Thanks to George Guess, co-director of the Center for Democracy and Election Management at American University; Allen Schick, professor at the University of Maryland School of Public Policy; and Bingham Powell, professor of political science at the University of Rochester. 


FP Explainer

How Dangerous Is the Plutonium Leaking from the Japanese Nuclear Reactor?

Not as dangerous as the other substances it's releasing.

On March 29, Japanese officials announced that toxic plutonium had been detected in the soil surrounding the earthquake- and tsunami-damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. The plutonium is thought to come from partially melted fuel rods in one of the plant's reactors. Tokyo Electric Power Co., which runs the stricken plant, maintains that the plutonium doesn't pose any threat to human health, but given the number of times the company has been caught downplaying the crisis over the last few weeks, it's understandable that the public would be skeptical. Isn't even a tiny bit of plutonium extremely dangerous?

Yes, but it's far from the biggest problem at Fukushima right now. We don't yet know exactly how much plutonium was detected in the soil near the plant, but it's unlikely to pose a serious health threat, particularly for those beyond the immediate vicinity of the plant. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the amount of plutonium detected does not exceed the levels normally tracked by Japanese authorities. Traces of plutonium are often found in soil around the world -- an unfortunate consequence of decades of nuclear testing -- and it's only because of the isotopic composition of this sample that authorities can say for certain it came from the damaged reactor.

Plutonium is scary stuff, largely because of how long it stays radioactive: The plutonium-239 isotope, among those used in one of the Fukushima reactors -- has a half-life of 24,000 years. However, the immediate dangers posed by plutonium exposure are often exaggerated. According to a 1995 report from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, you would have to ingest about .5 grams of plutonium to die immediately, compared to about .1 grams of cyanide. The plutonium at Fukushima isn't in the air, but inhaling about 20 milligrams of plutonium would probably kill you within a few months. External exposure carries almost no risk.

It is possible that, down the road, plutonium inhalation could be a concern, but it's still a relatively small one. Inhaling 0.0001 milligrams of plutonium would increase the risk of cancer mortality from about 200 in 1,000 to 201.2 in 1,000.

But at the amounts and levels currently detected, it's unlikely that anyone will be inhaling even that much plutonium from the Fukushima leak. What about plutonium in the drinking water? It, too, is a relatively minor threat: Plutonium is a heavy element that does not dissolve easily in water. If 10 ounces of it were introduced into a reservoir, only about 3 milligrams (one part in 100,000) would be dissolved; the rest would settle into sediment. If, somehow, the entire 3 milligrams were ingested by a population, it would, in theory, only cause about 0.6 additional cancer deaths.

Plutonium may be grabbing the headlines right now, but it's not the most dangerous substance being emitted from Fukushima. The steam intentionally vented from the plant contains iodine and cesium, both of which have a far shorter half-life than plutonium, but are being released in much higher amounts and, being airborne, can travel much farther. Radioactive iodine-131 has been detected off the coast of Fukushima at levels 1,150 times higher than normal. These elements may not be quite as radioactive as plutonium, but if ingested or inhaled, they also pose a risk of causing cancer.  

The severity of Japan's crisis shouldn't be downplayed, but plutonium is not the element that should be keeping people up at night.

Thanks to John Lee, professor of nuclear engineering and radiological sciences at the University of Michigan.