The next government shutdown
The first federal government shutdown of 2018 lasted all of three days. Before you breathe a big sigh of relief, we may be in for another one in a very short time. Our elected leadership bought a mere three weeks with their continuing funding resolution, setting February 8th as the new deadline for shutdown.
The process currently in use by the Congress to pass the budget became law in 1976. Since then we have had government shutdowns of one day or more in:
1980
1981
1984
1986
1990
1995
1996
2013
2018
What makes this most recent shutdown unique is that this was the first time that one political party was in control of the House, Senate and White House when it happened. Does that mean they had complete control of the government and Democrats share none of the blame? No. The filibuster rule in the Senate allowed the Democrats to try to leverage Republicans to compromise on a core issue that they weren't willing to budge on.
In the end though, I place 95% of the blame on the Republican leadership. Donald Trump gave them six months to come up with a legislative solution to address the issue of those impacted by his decision to end the DACA program. They failed to do so. DACA was a Band-Aid applied to the wound that is our nation's failure to address the issue of the presence of those who entered our nation illegally. So the Congress failed to fix a problem that a Band-Aid could not fix.
That is not an acceptable reason for yet another instance of a government shutdown. The problem isn't the issue of illegal immigration, or Trump's "wall" or the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). The problem is that our current process of funding the federal government is dysfunctional.
As the Pew Research Center points out, interest on our national debt is estimated to take up nearly 7% of all federal spending, making it the 4th largest single item in the federal budget. More than 30 years have gone by since the passage of the first "Balanced Budget Act." Despite that law there have been only four years during that period where federal spending did not exceed federal revenues. Those years were during the presidency of Bill Clinton. However, both political parties claim credit for those balanced budgets. Why? Because Republicans controlled Congress and Bill Clinton is a Democrat.
Congress is supposed to pass 12 separate spending bills each year to enact the complete federal budget. That process dates back to 1977 and there were only four occasions during those four decades where they did the entire process on time.
Worse yet, the current process allows members of the House and Senate to add unrelated items to great big budget bills in an effort to hide their wasteful spending. You can read more about earmarks and other examples of pork barrel spending in the annual Pig Book published by Citizens Against Government Waste.
Senator James Lankford (R- OK) published his own report, titled Federal Fumbles. It gives us a vital factoid in exploring why Congress struggles each year to pass a budget on time. He points out that at the end of October in their first year in office, 375 of President George W. Bush's nominees had been confirmed by the Senate. The tally for President Obama's nominees at the same point in time was 359. For Donald Trump that number is only 172. That is because there are a number of senators who are insisting that the Senate conduct the full 30 hours of debate allowed under Senate Rules. This is a waste of time since the nominees are already debated in committee. The 30 hour debate could and should be limited. If the Senate wants to debate these nominees on the floor for protracted periods, maybe they could shorten the process in committee.
* * *
The problem is that there are no incentives and no penalties for the Congress to get the budget done on time. That is what should change. There are no protections to limit the attachment of unrelated amendments to spending bills. That is what needs to change.
I would love to see the Constitution amended to impose hard deadlines on the budget process. There should be a firm deadline for the President to deliver their budget proposal to the Congress on January 2nd of each year. The House and the Senate should be mandated to pass their separate spending bills no later than July 31st of each year. That would give them 45 days to work out differences in their appropriations bills in conference committee. That would ensure that the bill would arrive on the President's desk no later than September 15th of each year, giving that person two weeks to sign the bill before the end of the federal government's fiscal year on September 30th.
If the House or the Senate fails to pass all of the appropriation bills on time, then the following should occur.
1. Pay for all elected members of the House, Senate or both (if both fail to meet the deadline) stops. The pay is lost permanently.
2. The House, Senate or both (if both fail to meet the deadline) are prohibited from adjourning or recessing until they pass the required bills.
3. Debate on any other pending legislation is suspended until the spending bills are passed.
Strong incentives to get them to do the job they were elected to do, and have consistently failed to do for decades seem fair to me. What do you think?
In the end though, I place 95% of the blame on the Republican leadership. Donald Trump gave them six months to come up with a legislative solution to address the issue of those impacted by his decision to end the DACA program. They failed to do so. DACA was a Band-Aid applied to the wound that is our nation's failure to address the issue of the presence of those who entered our nation illegally. So the Congress failed to fix a problem that a Band-Aid could not fix.
That is not an acceptable reason for yet another instance of a government shutdown. The problem isn't the issue of illegal immigration, or Trump's "wall" or the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). The problem is that our current process of funding the federal government is dysfunctional.
As the Pew Research Center points out, interest on our national debt is estimated to take up nearly 7% of all federal spending, making it the 4th largest single item in the federal budget. More than 30 years have gone by since the passage of the first "Balanced Budget Act." Despite that law there have been only four years during that period where federal spending did not exceed federal revenues. Those years were during the presidency of Bill Clinton. However, both political parties claim credit for those balanced budgets. Why? Because Republicans controlled Congress and Bill Clinton is a Democrat.
Congress is supposed to pass 12 separate spending bills each year to enact the complete federal budget. That process dates back to 1977 and there were only four occasions during those four decades where they did the entire process on time.
Worse yet, the current process allows members of the House and Senate to add unrelated items to great big budget bills in an effort to hide their wasteful spending. You can read more about earmarks and other examples of pork barrel spending in the annual Pig Book published by Citizens Against Government Waste.
Senator James Lankford (R- OK) published his own report, titled Federal Fumbles. It gives us a vital factoid in exploring why Congress struggles each year to pass a budget on time. He points out that at the end of October in their first year in office, 375 of President George W. Bush's nominees had been confirmed by the Senate. The tally for President Obama's nominees at the same point in time was 359. For Donald Trump that number is only 172. That is because there are a number of senators who are insisting that the Senate conduct the full 30 hours of debate allowed under Senate Rules. This is a waste of time since the nominees are already debated in committee. The 30 hour debate could and should be limited. If the Senate wants to debate these nominees on the floor for protracted periods, maybe they could shorten the process in committee.
* * *
The problem is that there are no incentives and no penalties for the Congress to get the budget done on time. That is what should change. There are no protections to limit the attachment of unrelated amendments to spending bills. That is what needs to change.
I would love to see the Constitution amended to impose hard deadlines on the budget process. There should be a firm deadline for the President to deliver their budget proposal to the Congress on January 2nd of each year. The House and the Senate should be mandated to pass their separate spending bills no later than July 31st of each year. That would give them 45 days to work out differences in their appropriations bills in conference committee. That would ensure that the bill would arrive on the President's desk no later than September 15th of each year, giving that person two weeks to sign the bill before the end of the federal government's fiscal year on September 30th.
If the House or the Senate fails to pass all of the appropriation bills on time, then the following should occur.
1. Pay for all elected members of the House, Senate or both (if both fail to meet the deadline) stops. The pay is lost permanently.
2. The House, Senate or both (if both fail to meet the deadline) are prohibited from adjourning or recessing until they pass the required bills.
3. Debate on any other pending legislation is suspended until the spending bills are passed.
Strong incentives to get them to do the job they were elected to do, and have consistently failed to do for decades seem fair to me. What do you think?
posted by me at 8:14 AM
<< Home