A popular current question is why so many Americans are so unhappy about the performance of their elected officials in Washington, D.C., giving Congress extremely low ratings.

Perhaps one of the major factors contributing to that attitude is partisanship seldom has appeared to be so extreme and many legislators openly put party and pork for their home districts far above concern for the general welfare. Political infighting consumes far more time than thoughtful legislative discussion.

Efforts to discredit the other party and its members also appear to get high priority and it could be they have had a significant impact since the low public regard is widely shared.

An example of the kind of political infighting the public has grown tired of involves the Oct. 1 deadline looming for funding the government for the next fiscal year.

Congress has enacted all required spending bills by the fiscal new year in only three of the past 30 years and in only 8 of the past 30 years did Congress complete one-quarter of the bills on time. When this week started, not a single spending bill had been sent to the president.

When Congress misses the deadline, a continuing resolution must be passed to keep government running at current spending levels until the final bills are passed.

Continuing resolutions not only consume a great deal of time, they provide opportunities for political posturing and manipulation by lawmakers to gain passage for large, wasteful, pork-laden omnibus bills.

In this process, members have to write, debate and vote on an average of five separate continuing resolutions over a matter of weeks, said Brian M. Riedl, an economic policies expert at Heritage Foundation. In 2001, Congress enacted 21 continuing resolutions. Using this time to complete the actual bills would be a much better use of time.

Another potential problem is that failure to pass continuing resolutions can lead to government shutdowns. In the winter of 1995/96, President Clinton and the Republican Congress failed to agree on terms of a continuing resolution. Without money appropriated to spend, several federal agencies were formed to temporarily shut down.

Closing of national parks got most of the attention in that case, Riedl said, but shutdowns also can jeopardize government benefits and services for those who depend on them.

The mere threat of government shutdowns also are used by congressional leaders to manipulate lawmakers into supporting whatever spending bills are brought to the floor before the annual deadline.

Over the years, this tactic has eased the passage of several unjustifiable big spending proposals. Frustrated lawmakers feared taking time to amend (or even read) these important bills would risk a government shutdown, Riedl explained.

A remedy for this problem is proposed in the government Shutdown Prevention Act authored by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX). The bill would ensure that delays in passing spending bills would not result in a government shutdown.

The legislation would mandate that, for any spending bills not completed by Oct. 1, the affected agencies would stay open and operate at the lowest of three funding levels - the previous year's budget, the current House-passed spending bill and the current Senate-passed bill.

With such a rule in place, gimmick, games or riders could not be used to manipulate the process or force a government shutdown. Congress could get on with its business of passing a budget, and Americans who depend on government services would not be held hostage to Congress's annual spending debates.

But it's difficult to get Congress to agree on anything these days. Some Democratic lawmakers oppose the bill. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) contends the threat of government shutdowns speeds up the budget process, saying, "If there is anything we need, it is the pressure to finish on time. If we are under pressure, it is more likely we will respond to it."

Observed Ridel, "He does not explain why, despite the perennial threat of government shutdowns, Congress has missed its deadline for 37 of the past 30 fiscal years."

A more likely reason for Democratic opposition, he suggests, "Is that congressional leaders could no longer use the threat of a government shutdown to force through bloated spending bills. This year, the Democratic-led House has passed spending bills that would increase non-war discretionary spending a steep 9.5 percent."

An automatic continuing resolution would help lawmakers rationally complete spending bills, reduce bloat and prevent Americans who rely on government services from becoming victims of congressional gridlock.

This Congress hasn't shown much concern for rational decision making, or even what the public thinks of the way it does things, so government shutdown prevention may be a long shot.