Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I don't understand is this: why not just change the process so that unless there is any change in funding decided politically, funding always continues as-is?
The whole setup is stupid, due to a chain of constitutional oddities. There's no distinction between budget votes and other kinds of votes. Most other systems, Westminster-style or otherwise, have a process which results in either a budget being passed or a fresh election being held which should result in a majority capable of passing one. The US system has elevated a denial of service attack (filibuster) to the stat…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(United_State...