Can we all agree that our constitutional government was meant to function?
That was the purpose of the Constitution. The Articles of Confederation did not allow us to function. The congress could not deal with the daily functioning of government. We were about to enter into the first (and likely the last) default in the history of the new nation.
Our first payment on the debt to France and Spain on the loans that allowed us to fight the war that secured our status as a nation were due. However, congress could not even pay its own staff or the army, let alone payments on the debt. This situation caused George Washington to say that we needed a "respectable government." I mention G.W. because he used that specific description, certainly not because he was the only one who felt that way.Certainly a non-functioning government - one that can be almost entirely shut down by a group of hypocritical, sanctimonious, petulant sociopaths - is either not a respectable government or one on the way to that ignominious end.
I propose an amendment to the Constitution to make sure that it continues to function in the event that there has been no agreement on a budget. Our current budgetary process is not set out in the Constitution. It is the result of the rules of congress and statutory laws that have been put into place to regulate that process. That is done now by the means of a continuing resolution which, in effect, continues governmental operation on the old budget until a new one can be produced.
So why not specify that in the constitution - a mandatory continuing resolution.
This would not solve all of the problems with our budget or debt limit. However, it would no longer be possible for a petulant (see above description) minority of congress to hold the government and the American people hostage by shutting down the government.
= new reply since forum marked as read
