The shutdown is not normal internationally [rev. 1/31/19]
A shutdown of the kind we have recently experienced is not the international norm. Budget laws of other countries typically provide that if a budget for the current year is not adopted, then spending levels as previously approved can continue. I am not aware of any other country that goes through shutdowns like the U.S.
We should adopt a similar rule through legislation, and apply this to the debt limit as well. The practice of holding our government hostage to advance particular policy concerns should be stopped. The ideal solution is a simple one. If appropriations legislation is not approved, the law should provide that the government can continue to operate based on the most recently approved appropriation, until a new appropriation is agreed on. Similarly, for the debt limit, in the absence of congressional authorization for an increase in the debt limit, this should be increased automatically pending an explicit increase.
We live in an era of divided government, which means that difficult negotiations on all kinds of policy issues will be needed. But the disagreements should not shut down the government. The American people should not be held hostage.
Sen. Robert Portman has introduced legislation that would eliminate any future government shutdowns(S. 104). It has many Republican cosponsors (as of Jan. 30, a total of 27 Republicans, including Portman) so this might be a good vehicle for Democrats to co-sponsor and move. One thing that might give Democrats pause is that it calls for a one-percent cutback in spending if appropriations are not approved after 120 days. I don’t think this is so problematic, though. The current situation is that no spending can take place without appropriations. Experience shows that Republicans do not cut spending in a draconian fashion, since appropriations bills end up getting passed. While it is theoretically possible that Republicans might refuse to pass an appropriations bill and rely on the automatic one-percent cutback, this strikes me as a not such a likely scenario (I consider several specific scenarios below). The key thing is to prevent a government shutdown when agreement on appropriations has not been reached, and the Portman bill would do that. It appears to me that the one-percent cutback in the Portman bill is a largely symbolic device that has garnered Republican support. Remember that it is largely Republicans that have used the shutdown. Accepting the one-percent symbolism is a small price to pay for avoiding shutdowns in the future, which would be a positive step for our economy.
Arguably, giving legislators this one-percent cutback option as a fallback might discourage enactment of appropriations, especially for those legislators keen to reduce spending. This argument misses the point that there is already a fallback for situations where legislators do not agree on appropriations, namely a continuing resolution (CR). While bad policy, CRs has routinely been used when appropriations negotiations break down, and a CR would continue to be available, and be the go-to fall back, if the Portman legislation becomes law.
Let’s consider a few specific scenarios to see what effect the Portman bill might have. First, the short-term situation, namely the remainder of President Trump’s current term. Suppose that appropriations bills (or a CR) are passed and Trump vetoes them, or that Trump blocks their passage, as he did with the recent shutdown. If the Portman bill were enacted, there would be no shutdown, but after 120 days the one-percent cutback would kick in. Such a cutback would not wreak nearly as much havoc as a shutdown. It would create some damage by handicapping vital spending programs. But both Trump and the Republicans would pay a big political price, because Democrats would hammer home that Republicans are underfunding important programs. Remember that years of Republican control of Congress until just weeks ago have led to virtually all agencies except the Defense sector being seriously underfunded already. Subjecting them to further cuts is something that not even most Republicans want to do, and would be politically very unpopular once the consequences of cuts are articulated. Most Republicans would like to cut spending further, but their main target is not discretionary spending, but entitlements (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) which are not even subject to annual appropriations. If Trump and the Republicans were to invoke the Portman fallback, this would add another nail to the coffin of Trump’s reelection prospects and would likely also lead to losses in both houses of Congress for Republicans. For Republicans in the House and Senate, playing this game is like playing one-player Russian roulette — not a popular game for those who want to go on living. So, while conceivable, it is not a likely scenario that the Portman default would be activatated in this scenario.
Second scenario is that Trump is re-elected. This is unlikely, but could happen, most likely if the Democratic nominee stumbles or there is a third-party candidate that siphons off Democratic votes. In this scenario, Trump might be emboldened to veto a spending bill to get some policy he wants, but Republican Senators and members of Congress would be subject to the consequences identified above (Russian roulette). They would endanger themselves in the next election. So again, highly unlikely that the Portman rules would kick in, or last very long beyond the 120-day deadline. (I am assuming that even if Trump is re-elected, Democrats will maintain control of the House, which seems quite likely.)
Third scenario is that a Democratic president replaces Trump. Most likely Democrats would control the House, and the Senate would be close. It is possible that the President would veto a spending bill that is sent over with unpalatable policy. Again, the most likely response is a CR or a short-term Portman default. Republican Senators could stonewall, but not very likely for reasons given above. It is most likely, in other words, that if Congress cannot agree on an appropriations bill in this situation, what they will do is pass a C.R. rather than triggering the Portman law.
The fourth scenario is a bit down the line. Suppose a Republican President and Republican control of both houses. In this case, Congress could presumably enact legislation cutting spending, so the Portman default would not operate. Democratic Senators could stonewall, but the most likely outcome is a negotiated solution. In this case, the Portman one-percent cutback might even be an insurance policy for Democrats, meaning that they could hold out for cuts in spending to be less than one percent.
Scenario five is the situation we had under the last 6 years of President Obama’s term: Democratic President but Republican control of Congress. In this case, the Portman law would mean that if the President vetoes appropriations bills that Congress sends over (maybe because they contain policy unacceptable to the president), there would be no shutdown. In this situation, congress could always pass a CR which, if clean, is something the president would sign. Congress could do nothing in face of the presidential veto of the appropriations bill, but again this would likely be unpopular. So, a theoretical possibility that the Portman law would be invoked, but not too likely.
My conclusion is that if the Portman bill is enacted, it is quite unlikely that its one-percent spending cuts would ever come into action, or at least not for a substantial period of time. This is a lot better than the current situation, which always includes the possibility of a shutdown. There is an analogy to statutory PAYGO. People get excited about it, but it is routinely waived.
The big spending battles in the future are likely to be over entitlement programs, not discretionary domestic spending.
Remember what the Portman bill would accomplish. It would prevent any further shutdowns while Trump is in office or in the future. Although legislation that does not include the one-percent cutback might be slightly more desirable, divided government means that Democrats often do not get the policies they prefer. Democrats should go ahead and accept the Portman bill and get it passed asap before Trump can shut down the government again.
