What D.C. can learn from California about ending shutdowns | Opinion

Government offices closed to the public, Services disrupted and a legislature in gridlock, unable to fund the government — with no end in sight. Government employees caught in the middle, furloughed, with some even facing layoffs.

While this sounds like the federal government shutdown we are facing today, I’m actually describing California in the early 2000s. I remember those days. Despite being one of the largest economies in the world, California’s government failed to pass a budget on time year after year. The state’s credit rating was downgraded multiple times. Pundits called California “ungovernable.” It was embarrassing.

Then, in 2010, voters decided they had enough. They passed Proposition 25, a constitutional amendment that required legislators to forfeit their pay every day they failed to pass a state budget on time.

Since then, California’s legislature has passed a budget on time every year. I know because, as a nonpartisan civil servant, I helped craft, negotiate and enact some of these budgets.

Amid yet another federal shutdown, Washington, D.C. could learn something from California’s reform. A simple rule — lawmakers lose their pay if they fail to fund the government — helped instill more fiscal stability and arguably more responsible governance in California. It could do the same for Congress.

We are now in the midst of the longest federal government shutdown in U.S. history. As of mid-October 2025, more than 700,000 federal employees have been furloughed, and many are working without pay. Making matters worse, shutdowns are becoming an increasingly frequent “governing” tactic.

If D.C. wants a roadmap out of this cycle of dysfunction, it should look west and adopt a policy similar to California’s, requiring members of Congress to permanently forfeit their pay for every single day government funding has lapsed.

Permanent forfeiture of pay is tough medicine, but continual shutdowns are a far tougher pill for Americans to swallow.

Yes, some lawmakers have requested that their pay be withheld during past and current shutdowns. But California legislators also had their pay withheld before Proposition 25 — and they still passed late budgets while government services ground to a halt. The difference was full accountability. Once pay was forfeited, timely budgets became the norm.

This is not to say requiring forfeiture will result in perfect funding proposals or that there isn’t a place to have legitimate political debates. Political debates should happen — but not through brinkmanship tactics allowing either party to hold the government hostage. This is simply about responsible governance.

So how do we implement a forfeiture policy? There are three options.

First, Congress could propose a constitutional amendment like California’s Proposition 25, requiring pay forfeiture for every day Congress fails to fund the government. Constitutional amendments are difficult to enact, and Congress is unlikely to vote to dock its own pay. Nevertheless, a movement toward a constitutional amendment would send a powerful signal that voters have had enough of shutdowns.

Second, Congress could pass legislation. Past proposals like this year’s “No Budget, No Pay” legislation have stalled. Furthermore, these bills typically withheld pay temporarily, later reimbursing members. To be effective, legislation must require permanent forfeiture. Additionally, this option would also have to start at the beginning of the next session of Congress, consistent with 27th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prevents changes to congressional pay during a session.

While this option wouldn’t necessarily end the current shutdown, it could still help stop future shutdowns for good.

Third, lawmakers can take action now by donating their pay for each day the government remains shut down. They could donate to causes supporting furloughed workers, and each party could enact internal rules requiring donations during a shutdown. Moving forward, voters can demand that candidates sign a pledge to donate their salaries to decrease the chances of a shutdown.

These options are just a start. But the notion of forfeiting pay as a matter of accountability remains central to helping ensure responsible governance.

Ultimately, lawmaking is a public service. Shutting down a government seems contrary to serving the public. Serving the public involves tough choices — including forfeiting pay as a measure of honest, responsible governance. California voters saw the light and enacted this reform. Washington should too.

When the lights go out in Washington, the people who turned them off shouldn’t still be getting paid.

Dana Cruz is a mid-career Master of Public Administration candidate at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. He worked as an attorney in the California state government.

This story was originally published November 7, 2025 at 10:46 AM.