The shutdown doesn't really save the government much money.
The pay that is currently being withheld from exempted employees is guaranteed to be paid to them once the funding is there, and Congress has always voted in the past to send back pay to the non-exempt employees as well, and has indicated it will do so again now.
Besides that, while the shutdown is occurring any services that the government is currently procuring from private industry have to be put on hold unless the service itself is exempt, but of course the contracts are already funded for the whole period of performance, so the government is effectively throwing money away on those contracts.
Really, there isn't very much money saved by doing the shutdown.
Note that everything listed here could be exempt anyway and ignore the lapse in appropriations.
New purchases are not being made, but will probably be made immediately after funds become available.
Contracts that expire during the shutdown similarly won't be renewed until after the shutdown is over, but will still probably be renewed as normal.
In theory, there might be less of an upkeep cost to the facilities while there are fewer workers using them, but I doubt there's any significant costs that can be reduced there.
Depending on the wording of the Congressional approval for back pay for non-exempt employees, the back pay could only be paid if they don't quit while they are furloughed.
So, if the shut down lasted long enough, it would effectively force employees to find other work and forfeit their back pay.
I'd imagine no politician wants to come out in favor of not paying government employees so long that they are forced to quit to start making money again.
Since most government contracts have 1 year periods of performance, if the shutdown lasted a whole year it would run out most of the non-exempt contracts, which could save some money.
This particular concept requires a very long shutdown and probably wouldn't end up saving that much money though, since many services are likely exempt (or whatever the term is for approving obligating funds for a contract when there is a lapse in appropriations).
politics.stackexchange.com/users/6598/IllusiveBrian
Consider an analogy:
You may not like the idea of private cars, and think there ought to be a decent mass transportation system for everyone.
Still, in the current world, there isn't a mass transit system where you live, so you pretty much have to commute to work by car.
How would you feel about another '70s-style oil embargo?
The conservatives might not like some aspects of government, but they generally want those parts they don't like removed in an orderly fashion.
The "shutdown" is pretty much across the board, also affecting things that conservatives do want.
Another factor is that it's a temporary shutdown: when it ends, all the backlog, from missed paychecks to undone paperwork to trash piled up in national parks, will have to be taken care of, probably incurring extra costs.
politics.stackexchange.com/users/9722/jamesqf
A shutdown is bad for people, people who are voters.
Politicians want to stay on the good side of voters because at some point they will be up for re-election.
If conservative politicians are perceived to have caused and prolonged the shutdown then some voters who faced negative things because of it will remember and vote for someone who opposed the shutdown.
Just some examples of why a shutdown is bad: Federal workers don't get paid during the shutdown.
As such, they may have trouble paying their bills.
National parks are closed.
If you had planned a trip to visit one, you may not be allowed to enter.
This article by Time lists some more consequences which may be considered burdensome by voters.
politics.stackexchange.com/users/18862/JJ for Transparency and Monica
The premise is incorrect that conservatives "don't like government" or are altogether against government spending.
Conservatives oppose "Big Government" , or in other words, government trying to reach objectives that are not legitimate functions of government.
Examples include college aid, welfare spending, and funding abortion.
None of these fits into the framework of the Constitution, which specifies the roles of federal government as "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" .
Funding unnecessary and overreaching programs foments division, not union.
Justice is best served by upholding equitable and fair laws, not by giving handouts.
These programs are antithetical to conservative values, which explains why conservatives would work hard to keep the legitimate functions of government running and are OK with spending to keep them running (national defense, justice, legal review, law enforcement) but strive to interfere with activities that are not legitimate (spending taxpayer dollars on welfare or college aid, which is in effect buying partisan votes using non-partisan funds, etc.).
Conservatives strive to stem such programs to prevent runaway bloat and expansion of illegitimate functions, while focusing on the need to maintain the essential functions of government .
politics.stackexchange.com/users/20728/pygosceles
Very few people oppose the concept of a government, so a government shutdown doesn't really benefit anybody.
Conservatives dislike some of the scopecreep that's happened, but they generally have some things they support - things like DHS, the FBI (until recent years?), the courts, police, military, etc.
It strikes this liberal as a bit odd that conservatives tend to support the more aggressive parts of the government while also often trotting out the line that "When governments fear the people, there is liberty.
", but some hypocrisy is inevitable with any sufficiently large political movement.
politics.stackexchange.com/users/21163/David Rice
As far as I know, I have repeatedly heard a conservative stance arguing in favor of reducing government spending. But, at the same time, it appears as though politicians from across all aisles want to avoid a government shutdown. If conservatives don't support government spending, why wouldn't they approve of a government shutdown and purposely try to instigate one as often as possible?   What reasons have prominent conservatives given to justify ending the shutdown and how do they reconcile that end with their desire for reforms that reduce spending?
If conservatives don't like government, why don't they like the shutdown?
politics.stackexchange.com
<united-states><parties><government-shutdown><conservatism>
politics.stackexchange.com/questions/37724
politics.stackexchange.com/users/24399/user14554
No politician wants to come out in favour of not paying government employees.  The "shutdown" also affects things that conservatives want.   Politicians want to stay on the good side of voters because at some point they will be up for re-election. If conservative politicians are perceived to have caused and prolonged the shutdown then some voters who faced negative things because of it will remember and vote for someone who opposed the shutdown. Politicians want their supporters to stay on side and there is also not much money to be saved through the shutdown.
Politicians want their supporters to stay on side. There is not much money to be saved through the shutdown.