How to avoid another government shutdown

Another year, another looming government shutdown fight.

That’s the predicament Nevada’s six-member congressional delegation has put us in. They’re currently enjoying a month-long vacation after leaving D.C. without fulfilling their basic constitutional duty: funding the government for 2017. When they return after Labor Day, they’ll have to scramble to avoid a government shutdown on Oct. 1.

This government-by-crisis is now a tradition. In fact, it’s been more than 20 years since Congress passed a budget on time. The result is almost always the same — and it doesn’t benefit Nevadans.

Days, or maybe just hours, before the shutdown, some lawmakers will advocate for a short-term funding bill that lasts through December. This will kick the debate over next year’s budget into a “lame-duck” session — the two-month period between the election and the next administration, when neither Congress nor President Obama is accountable to voters.

Worse yet, they’ll use this opportunity to enact a massive “omnibus” bill that’s crafted behind closed doors and filled with handouts to special interests and higher spending. Then lame-duck lawmakers will pass it without even reading it, abandoning their duty to protect their constituents — to protect you.

Nevadans — along with everyone else — are understandably sick of this charade. Lawmakers say they are, too. Both Republicans and Democrats say they want budget certainty and fiscal responsibility. If they mean it, they’ll stop a lame-duck spending bill at any cost.

But they’ll need to think outside the box. That’s why they should pass a long-term funding bill. We’re calling this plan “Stop, Cut &Fix.”

Here’s why it’s the best path forward for Nevada’s lawmakers in D.C.

Start with “Stop.” A long-term funding bill — say, two-years — would end the cycle of manufactured crises. For the first time in years, there would be no last-minute scramble to avoid a shutdown. Nor would a lame-duck Congress and President Obama be able to craft a deal in secret.

Next up is “Cut.” The biggest problem with the current system is that some lawmakers — on both sides of the aisle — leverage the threat of a shutdown to hike spending in a lame-duck session. It’s little different than a hostage situation, and it’s happened three times in the past four years.

But a two-year funding bill would protect the bipartisan spending cuts that were established in the 2011 Budget Control Act. Back then, Republicans and Democrats in Congress joined with President Obama to establish modest annual spending caps on the one-quarter of the budget that isn’t entitlements and interest payments.

These caps are still on the books. A two-year bill would lock them in through 2018, saving taxpayers $150 billion.

Finally, there’s “Fix.” It’s obvious that the budgeting process is broken. A two-year funding bill would give Congress time to fix it. Lawmakers could go through a normal appropriations process, publicly debating spending priorities for each part of the federal government. They would even have time to discuss reforms to entitlements — the main drivers of America’s $19.4 trillion-and-growing national debt.

Crucially, there’s nothing in this plan preventing lawmakers from adjusting spending within the caps. They would simply have to weigh each proposal’s pros and cons and make tradeoffs — what they’re supposed to be doing now.

Now it’s up to Congress to act. When Nevada’s lawmakers head back to D.C. next month, they have two choices. They can either stick with the failed status quo — broken promises, higher spending, and shutdown threats — or they can get behind a plan that prevents a shutdown fight, restores the normal budgeting process and puts Nevada taxpayers first.

It shouldn’t be a hard decision.

Andy Koenig is a senior policy advisor at Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce. Visit stopcutfix.com for more details.