Shutdown is more about politics than budgets

The federal government's shutdown is in its third day today, and the only progress seems to be in the increases in partisan finger-pointing by congressional leaders and the White House. Today's problem is indicative of a much larger, long-range problem with the entire budgeting process, which, as a New York Times article says, is more about partisan sniping than budgeting.

Congress runs into these impasses on a regular basis — annually or more often. The leadership of both parties in Congress appears to be more interested in gaining political advantage than in doing the work they were elected to do. Congress' fundamental responsibility is to pass a budget and appropriate funds for the federal government to operate. In the current environment, this appears to be nearly impossible. 

Political leaders and commentators are more interested in which party is winning the public relations battle than in providing the means for carrying out government functions. Major changes too the budgetary process will be needed to prevent the entire legislative process from dissolving into chaos. Changes have been tried before. I was employed by the federal government in Washington in 1974 when Congress extended the 1973-74 fiscal year to 15 months in order to give congressional committees and leaders more time to pass a budget appropriate funds. Instead of having budgeting and appropriations done by July 1, the traditional end of the fiscal year, Congress would have until Oct. 1 to complete the process. That has worked out really well, hasn't it? 

Let me offer one simple proposal. Pass a law that cancels the salaries and other payments to all members of Congress any time the budget and appropriations bills are not completed by the beginning of the fiscal year, Oct. 1. I think that motivation might be sufficient to get members of Congress to "do something." The cancellation could even be extended to all elected officials, including the president and vice president, who have assumed roles in the budgetary process.

In the current shutdown, Democrats are hoping voters will rise up against President Trump and his party for opposing a permanent solution for the DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) immigrants. Republicans are hoping voters will rise up against Democrats' DACA demands while declining Republicans' agreement on a six-year extension of the popular, bipartisan CHIP (Children's Health Insurance Program). Democrats call it the Trump Shutdown. Republicans call it the Schumer Shutdown (after the Senate Minority Leader).

If there is no compromise, it appears to me that Republicans will ultimately gain the advantage. Republicans are offering a long-term deal on CHIP, which, they point out, benefits millions of American citizens, while Democrats are holding out for preferential treatment for less than a million (reportedly) resident non-citizens. The issues are more complicated than that, but most voters will not get into the nuances and will only see the broad outlines. On that basis, the Republicans have the more persuasive argument, as well as the catchier slogan: "Schumer Shutdown."