How to Avoid Govt. Shutdown Option

JOHN MCGINNIS & MIKE RAPPAPORT: How to End the Government Shutdown Option: Budget impasses have a way of working out badly for the GOP. Here’s a way to avoid the next crisis.

The GOP almost always bears the blame for a shutdown, because the smaller-government message of Republicans is easily portrayed as aiming to deprive the public of government services. President Clinton faced off against House Speaker Newt Gingrich in 1995, and Mr. Clinton won. President Obama dueled with the Republican House in 2013 and Mr. Obama won.
The advantages to the political party that favors higher spending—i.e., the Democrats—reflect the existing legal regime. But the next Congress can change the law (the most relevant one being the Antideficiency Act) so that the public suffers less inconvenience when the political parties cannot agree on spending levels. In case of a government shutdown, the government would continue to spend on discretionary programs at a level close to the amount authorized by the previous year’s budget. A reasonable default target might be 95%.
Such a law could be a political game-changer. The public would be less likely to suffer serious inconvenience with spending at this default target, and a 5% solution would strengthen the leverage of the party favoring less spending, i.e., the GOP. A 5% cut would in any event be closer to what Republicans ultimately want. They could hold out for a deal preferable to the default, since there would be very low costs imposed on the public in the interim.
A budget reform law should also include provisions to deter a president from increasing the political costs of a government shutdown. Pursuing what is known as the Washington Monument strategy, the executive branch often closes down popular government services such as the Washington Monument or White House tours, claiming that it lacks the funds to keep them open.
The law could discourage this strategy by requiring each agency of the federal government to reduce spending in the way that would be the least disruptive and costly to the public. The government should also be prohibited from taking certain specific actions, such as furloughing employees, that are known to cause significant disruptions to the public.

Indeed.