Except that’s not what this plan or the commenters above are implying. Nobody is saying “Shut it down, but don’t hurt anyone”. The plan, and commenters are all saying “Make it impossible to shut it down by not agreeing”. It sounds subtle, but the distinction is important.
Today - We can’t agree, so inaction will produce a shutdown. (Which, as you pointed out, is what some want.)
Goal - We can’t agree, so inaction will continue the “as-is” current situation.
In both scenarios, nobody is able to agree and take an action to fund the government with a new budget plan. Today, the inaction produces an outcome that causes great disruption as waste. The proposal is that inaction should cause it to coast on auto pilot with no changes.
Remember, “inacation”, “no decision”, “doing nothing” are all really still decisions. They’re decisions to accept the consequences that not having a new plan produces.
Having a thermo-nuclear option to try and force an action is just a recipe for having the thermo-nuclear option happen. Better to stay status-quo instead.
