Politico's September 22, 2023 Senators seek to stop shutdowns forever, after McCarthy’s spending stumbles describes several early discussions, but doesn't address the implications. For example, one proposal
would trigger two-week stopgap bills and require Congress to focus solely on spending bills if Congress misses its Sept. 30 funding deadline.
At first glance it feels perfectly reasonable to me, serial, mini "stay the course" edicts while working on plotting the new one. One might argue that the original calls to "stay the course" did not produce ideal outcomes, but simply not making any drastic changes two weeks at a time coupled with a requirement to not do anything else until you agree on a new one seems better to me than a shut down.
It also takes a bit of wind of of the sails of individual politicians calling for shutdowns as a way of getting attention for their personal careers (which should be distinguished from those who do it out of a sense of service to their country).
But every rule or law has the potential for unintended and often unanticipated gamesmanship, loopholes and abuse. So I'd like to ask:
Question: What would be the downside(s) to or pitfalls of legislation that produces a permanent end to government shutdown threats in the US?
I specify the US only because I'm totally unfamiliar with recurring shutdown threats in other countries; certainly known downsides and pitfalls from permanent ends to shutdown threats in other countries might be relevant examples of what could happen here.