Not having a real budget is just a parliamentary procedure tactic, creating pressure opportunities when various continuing resolutions come up. If they have to make a budget they’ll make one, that doesn’t mean they’ll actually stop being partisan fools and put together a good one. It'll still be subject to all the usual nonsense.

Yep. The US has had several years without a budget, and it meant exactly nothing.

Sort of like the debt limit, it leads to a lot of political maneuvering but doesn't actually limit anything.

> meant exactly nothing.

"Excuse me?" said the burgeoning national debt.

And copious peer pressure not to be That Guy.

> copious peer pressure not to be That Guy

How? You don’t think you could find Democrats, today, who wouldn’t roll the dice on a new Congress? The proposal essentially gives a narrow minority the ability to call no confidence.

...and self-immolate. You don't work that hard to get elected and then piss it away.

> You don't work that hard to get elected and then piss it away

If it gives your party a chance at retaking power? It would be an obvious trade for an administration to do.

So, you're saying that a large number (say, 100) of minority members of the House would scuttle their current seats in order to blow away the majority party's seats?

I remind you that, under the current regime, Sen. Schumer (D-BY) played along with the GOP Continuing Resolution* not because he fancied the CR, but to avoid giving the Treasury the power of the purse that would come with a shutdown.

*And took a napalm shower for it in social media.