Over the years, conservative activists and candidates have embraced a number of government-reform ideas, from term limits to a balanced budget constitutional amendment to eliminating earmarks. They’re not alone in this: Liberal activists and candidates have their own suggestions for government reform, whether it’s expanding the Supreme Court, changing redistricting processes, or implementing Clean Elections nationwide. All of these ideas, whether coming from the left or the right, share a few simple commonalities, though: They seem like quick and easy solutions, there’s not much evidence they’d fix anything, and they’re not even supported fully on their own side.

We know this because, at the state level, Maine has implemented a couple of these ideas and they haven’t paid off as advertised. Maine has passed both term limits and Clean Elections, back when both concepts were less controversial and partisan, and they’ve done basically nothing. Maine’s version of term limits hasn’t eliminated the concept of career politicians – far from it. Instead, it’s forced those who want to stay in office forever to simply find creative ways to work around the law. They can easily take one term out and return, or simply switch back and forth between the House and the Senate. Rather than changing the makeup of the Maine Legislature, term limits have simply empowered state bureaucrats and the executive branch at the expense of the legislative branch – and there’s no reason to think the same thing wouldn’t happen if implemented at the federal level.

Similarly, the use of Clean Elections in Maine hasn’t done much to get “big money” out of politics in any meaningful way, nor has it – at least on an overall, statistical level – changed the makeup of the Maine Legislature. Instead, like with term limits, wealthy corporate interests have simply found a way around the law. They’ve funneled their money to leadership PACs or to the two major parties, and that’s only increased partisanship and division in the state – the opposite of what Clean Elections advocates intended.

Rather than proposing grandiose, sweeping reforms that appeal to the base but have little chance at enactment, conservatives should embrace – at the federal level – a simpler change that would dramatically reshape fiscal policy in Washington: The elimination of continuing resolutions. In case you’re not aware, continuing resolutions are a gimmick that Washington politicians use to avoid passing an actual budget: They continue government funding at the current level while avoiding a government shutdown, hence the name. While this might seem like a reasonable, responsible solution that avoids partisan showdowns, there are a couple of problems with this approach.

One is that budgets don’t just set spending levels, they determine policy. Legislation that is passed, but unfunded, languishes in a kind of purgatory under continuing resolutions. We see a similar effect at the state level when it comes time to fund new bills that have been passed: The Legislature’s Appropriations Committee frequently nixes legislation by refusing to fund it, serving as a kind of super-majority like the filibuster in the U.S. Senate. That encourages the passage of irresponsible legislation and creates an easy, ready-made excuse for politicians. Continuing resolutions do the same at a federal level, locking in policies that were passed in the last budget that actually made it into law, whenever that was. That means that even though a new administration may roll into town, eager to implement the agenda they promised to their supporters, they can’t implement anything if they don’t pass a budget. We’ve seen this at play recently in Washington, when a number of policies implemented under the Trump administration’s last budget were frozen in place until Congress passed a new one.

Instead of discouraging partisan brinksmanship, continuing resolutions seem to encourage bipartisan laziness, allowing the federal government to avoid passing a real budget for months, and, at times, years. It encourages thoughtless legislating, reckless campaigning, and a lack of true responsible governing, all of which are terribly convenient for career politicians who want to remain in office at all costs. Fortunately, unlike the proposals mentioned earlier, banning continuing resolutions can be implemented relatively easily: Candidates simply have to pledge to never vote for any CR, no matter what’s in it. There’s no constitutional amendment needed, nor should this be a partisan issue; it’s simply one of good governance. If you want your federal candidates to truly reform D.C., this should be an idea that they can all embrace, regardless of whether they’re on the left or on the right.

Jim Fossel, a conservative activist from Gardiner, worked for Sen. Susan Collins. He can be contacted at:
jwfossel@gmail.com
Twitter: @jimfossel