Bill would let Congress be lazy and unaccountable

Bill would let Congress be lazy and unaccountable

It’s encouraging that U.S. House and Senate negotiators have agreed on a budget deal that would fund federal agencies through the fall of 2015, and that the House, in an outbreak of bipartisanship, passed the measure Thursday night. The deal, if approved by both houses, would prevent another government shutdown.

Shutdowns like the one that occurred in October are bad for everyone, most notably Congress, whose approval ratings drop through the floor whenever one occurs. That makes U.S. Sen. Rob Portman’s “End Government Shutdowns Act” a tempting idea – but only until one understands the true implications of the bill. In truth, it would make lawmakers less accountable for their decisions and encourage across-the-board cuts instead of finding and cutting spending where it’s most needed or least painful.

Here’s the background: There are 12 appropriations bills Congress needs to pass every year to fund almost $1 trillion in discretionary spending. They are chronically late; in the past four years, not one has been signed on time. When the delay goes on too long, the federal government shuts down.

The bill voted on Thursday should avert another crisis in the near term. It’s expected to pass the Senate next week and would fund programs through most of 2015. That should eliminate the possibility of a government shutdown until then.

If future Congresses can’t reach an agreement, though, Portman’s bill would introduce a series of measures designed to keep the government open while giving elected officials incentives to find agreement on the budget. If a program’s appropriations bill isn’t signed by the start of the next fiscal year, spending continues at the then-current level. After 120 days, spending is reduced by 1 percent; after that, spending is reduced another 1 percent every 90 days.

There are a few things wrong with the plan.

It allows lawmakers to deal with different appropriations bills separately, so they could pass bills that fund popular programs while allowing bills that are difficult to cut to languish. And by creating a mechanism for automatic spending cuts, it would avoid the attention of a shutdown threat. This could allow lawmakers to put off difficult decisions in favor of automatic, across-the-board spending cuts similar to the current cuts under sequestration.

It could also encourage lawmakers who favor cutting spending to do nothing and allow the automatic cuts to kick in. While the sequestration cuts haven’t been popular, they haven’t created the kind of hardship and outrage many people predicted. There’s nothing wrong with cutting government spending, but those cuts ought to be hammered out, debated and agreed upon, and they ought to be targeted instead of across the board. That’s what the House did in easily passing the budget bill Thursday. Let’s hope the vote establishes a spirit of bipartisanship that can influence future legislation.

Portman says the last shutdown sent Congress’ approval ratings below 10 percent. “At a time when the American people’s faith in their government has never been more fragile, the shutdown dealt that confidence yet another blow,” he says. But restoring confidence in Congress won’t come from a law that requires automatic budget cuts in order to prevent a shutdown.

That will happen when Congress members finally and fully do their jobs and come up with an on-time budget that enough people can agree on. The House vote Thursday, on a deal that budget negotiators unveiled last week, is a promising sign that lawmakers can do the jobs we elected them to do.