The problem is that the 1980 memo was a legally correct interpretation of the Antideficiency Act, which clearly and explicitly prohibits the government from incurring obligations in the absence of available appropriations. (I'd suggest you read the 1980 memo; its reasoning and conclusions are compelling as a matter of law.) It's also worth noting that the relatively few funding gaps that occurred back then were not the result of deliberate funding impasses in Congress and lasted only a day or two. A change in the shutdown rules would require an amendment to the Antideficiency Act, not a new DOJ memo.
This happened under Carter. What was going on politically to cause this “reinterpretation?” I lived thru a bunch of shutdown crises beginning in 1995 and never heard so much as a whisper of this. My agency falls in the far upper left of your chart.
This presupposes that Congress thinks it has a problem and seeks a solution, not unlike the situation where outsiders believe the filibuster is a problem. If they wanted to solve this problem, it simply wouldn't exist, but it yields a political result they believe is politically advantageous.
The problem is that the 1980 memo was a legally correct interpretation of the Antideficiency Act, which clearly and explicitly prohibits the government from incurring obligations in the absence of available appropriations. (I'd suggest you read the 1980 memo; its reasoning and conclusions are compelling as a matter of law.) It's also worth noting that the relatively few funding gaps that occurred back then were not the result of deliberate funding impasses in Congress and lasted only a day or two. A change in the shutdown rules would require an amendment to the Antideficiency Act, not a new DOJ memo.
This happened under Carter. What was going on politically to cause this “reinterpretation?” I lived thru a bunch of shutdown crises beginning in 1995 and never heard so much as a whisper of this. My agency falls in the far upper left of your chart.
This presupposes that Congress thinks it has a problem and seeks a solution, not unlike the situation where outsiders believe the filibuster is a problem. If they wanted to solve this problem, it simply wouldn't exist, but it yields a political result they believe is politically advantageous.
“Shutdown rules” is an important concept here. Can you say more about those, how they originate, etc?
You say “It requires a new Attorney General to issue a new legal opinion.” Could the current AG do it?