What leverage? Shutdown fights don’t get results

As the federal government approaches another funding deadline, naturally there’s another attempt to get something big out of it.

Unfortunately, the possibility of shutdowns creates leverage only for congressional leadership and top appropriators, not for most Republican members or the American people they serve.

Think about it. Most members of Congress will accept a lot to avoid a government shutdown. And with good reason. Americans expect the federal government to provide various services in exchange for the taxes they pay.

Those who negotiate and set the agenda for spending legislation know this. These agenda setters are typically some combination of the four top appropriators and the four party leaders in Congress, plus leaders of other committees with a significant stake in the legislation.

They know what works: keep tight control over the bill during negotiations, add a few pieces they want, and, above all, don’t pick fights with interest groups. The bill gets sprung on the remaining members of Congress, who have no chance to amend it and little time to review it. This creates enormous intraparty tension and sets factions against each other, especially among Republicans.

It passes, but not because most members prefer it to current policy. Most only prefer it to a shutdown.

Members are sensitive to the views of those entities funded through appropriations. Those organizations’ representatives don’t hesitate to seek redress of purported grievances like not enough money. The bill doesn’t exactly have to make those interests happy, but it can’t upset many. That’s why budget bloat in appropriations continues year after year.

Why then do so many conservatives think that a potential lapse in appropriations gives them leverage? Because some vocal members of the Republican base think they do, and because certain members and advocacy organizations perpetuate the narrative, which keeps the base riled up, and the cycle continues. Those looking for a “fight” are especially drawn to this sort of posturing. We see things differently at Americans for Prosperity, the nation’s largest grassroots organization representing freedom-oriented activists.

Shutdown fights don’t work. The 2013 shutdown happened over an attempt to end ObamaCare, but most of it is still on the books.

As a congressional staffer for a House Freedom Caucus member in the 114th Congress (2015-2016), I drafted a bill to establish automatic continuing appropriations. That means current spending would remain in place until new spending bills are enacted. That’s what the federal government did before 1980, and several states do it now with great success. We never introduced it because conservatives wanted to defund Planned Parenthood. That didn’t happen either.

President Donald Trump’s funding request to “build the wall” produced the longest partial shutdown in U.S. history in 2018-2019. Congress didn’t approve the funding, so Trump declared an emergency and repurposed funds. Even a president couldn’t successfully leverage a shutdown.

Where do we go now? Congress should look to the federal government’s past as well as to the states. Many states have continuous appropriations to varying degrees, but Wisconsin, North Carolina and Rhode Island have comprehensive statutory provisions for automatic continuing appropriations at previously authorized levels. The federal government did the same thing but without firm statutory authority until 1980.

Such a backstop makes for a healthier process. Without the risk of a shutdown against a holiday, getting majority support means involving more members in the policymaking process. They can challenge misallocations, and ultimately most members must prefer the new legislation to current policy. This isn’t an especially high bar.

Flat funding seems to be the political sweet spot, such as for Sens. James Lankford (R-Okla.) and Maggie Hassan’s (D-N.H.) Prevent Government Shutdowns Act. But flat funding doesn’t adjust for inflation or a growing population, nor does it update domestic or foreign policy programs as conditions change. With automatic continuing appropriations or not, Congress has strong reasons to complete the appropriations process each year with continuous improvements.

Automatic continuing appropriations can empower more members to shape policy priorities. They can help Congress shave away bloat to shift funds to higher priorities. They can help appropriations conclude on time — ideally in July — so agencies can plan and so the next budget cycle can start when it’s supposed to.

The possibility of shutdowns is bad for the American people, for sound budgeting, and for Congress as an institution. Even worse than no leverage for good policy, the risk of shutdowns creates unhealthy pressures and poor outcomes that hurt Americans. It’s time to end the 43-year experiment with shutdowns and get back to keeping programs going while Congress finalizes new appropriations legislation.

Kurt Couchman is senior fellow in fiscal policy at Americans for Prosperity.