Congress, Go Big or Go Home: Amend the Budget Act to Avert Government Shutdowns

Yet another federal government shutdown is upon us. The choice should be not whether to allow a partial shutdown, but whether Congress should “go big or go home.” The real choice should be a total government shutdown or none at all.

A small group of anti-government zealots evidently want to play “chicken” with the federal budget and its credit score. Odds are, there will be a shutdown. But essential government functions — such as prisons, the military, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — will be funded, at least for now. Members of Congress will be paid, too, although their staff will not. Vulnerable Americans, those receiving WIC or SNAP benefits, may feel the pain immediately. Most Americans, however, will not feel the effects of a partial shutdown; the pain will not be spread evenly.

That is the problem with a partial shutdown. Many who dislike the government or specific programs will not be affected — at least not in the short term, or in ways that affect the poor. 

We need a better way.

One option is to let the government actually shut down, totally and completely. Reject the false distinction that there are “essential” and “non-essential” governmental functions. If Congress cannot come to an agreement, there is no funding and no government operations. Give the zealots what they want and let them live with the consequences of their choice. Courts, prisons and military bases would temporarily close. Seniors would not get their Social Security checks or health insurance.

It sounds cruel but maybe it would be effective. It would show the true value and importance of the government. It would demonstrate that all functions are essential. It also would force Congress — who, under this scenario, would not get paid — to confront the reality of its inaction. Right now, a partial shutdown bails out Congress; it can be irresponsible, and most of the government will continue to operate.

The problem with this option, however, is that the risks are too high: Vulnerable Americans will be hurt with a full shutdown, just as they are with a partial one.

Government shutdowns are not inevitable. They are the product of political disagreement; they could be solved politically — and permanently. Part of the problem is rooted in the 1974  Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act that established the process and deadlines for a federal budget. The law largely has been a failure. One solution is to amend the law to provide for an automatic continuing resolution to keep the government funded at current levels, plus inflation, so that no shutdown occurs.

In Minnesota, where I live, we have had three partial government shutdowns in the past 25 years.  There also have been several times when a shutdown appeared imminent. Even the threat of a shutdown, however, costs money — the plans to shut down and reopen the government are a waste of taxpayer dollars. I have argued for years that we need to have in place a mechanism to prevent this from happening. With an automatic continuing resolution, if there is no agreement by the deadline, the current budget would become law until lawmakers pass a new budget. Although Minnesota has not adopted this approach, Wisconsin and North Carolina have. 

The federal government needs a similar law. Yes, such a law might take the pressure off Congress to act, and it might even incur more irresponsible behavior. But it would allow for the government not to close and would end the brinkmanship of the current process. It would protect those who rely on government services. It would force those who do not like the government to reach agreement on its funding, lest the status quo budget would continue, perhaps to their dismay.

The Framers of our Constitution demanded a government in which the elected officials would be checked and held responsible for their behavior. They also wanted to protect against potential abuses by instituting rules and processes. Amending the 1974 law to mandate an automatic continuing resolution is one way to avert the threat of future partial shutdowns, which accomplish nothing.

David Schultz (@ProfDSchultz) is Distinguished University Professor at Hamline University, teaching in the departments of political science, legal studies and environmental studies. His latest book is “Presidential Swing States: Why Only Ten Matter.