Yes it would. It might even make passing any change harder. If what you want is exactly what you have, not compromising on anything would let you keep it.
I can definitely see that it’s not some silver bullet solution. It’s just that it would eliminate the uncertainty and impact to day to day workers caused by a shutdown. People that directly harmed by a shutdown, yet have no control.
That uncertainty also makes it hard to hire skilled workers. Let’s say the FDA wants to hire physician scientists to review drug studies. They need to compete with what those doctors can make in the private sector. One way they do this is with non monetary benefits. Stable work hours, no on-call, no dealing with medical billing processes, telework. Things that are not cash, since there’s no way for them to compete with private practice. Now, throw all those out the window and replace it with “congress can’t pass a budget, so we’re not going to pay you for a month”, to bad that you have plans around a consistent paycheck, mortgage, cost of living. Just suck it up and float the federal government a free loan for a month. It’s not exactly a huge draw to get employees.
https://budget.house.gov/publications/report/understanding-sequester-update-2018
The budget Sequester was supposed to be so bad that nobody would ever let it happen when it was passed. They would always pass something to prevent an impact. Yet, it’s happen many many times anyway.
Anything that’s designed to pressure someone into an action, must be assumed that it will fail and occur.
