Now that the midterm elections have passed, members of Congress are back in Washington and up to no good. Congress punted on appropriations which they were supposed to finish before September 30th, by kicking the deadline into the middle of the lame duck. That continuing resolution is set to expire on December 16th, after which date the federal government would partially shut down.

There’s a huge slate of issues that could get tacked onto that “must‐pass” bill that threatens taxpayers with trillions of dollars in new spending. And there’s a simple solution. Punt on appropriations bills once more and kick the deadline out of the lame duck into the new year.

Here are five reasons why Congress should not legislate during the lame duck unless it is absolutely necessary (as in responding to an unexpected, sudden emergency that demands urgent action):

Congress might lift or eliminate the debt limit without first stabilizing the debt, rattling investors and increasing inflation expectations.

According to news reports, some Democrats are advocating for raising or even eliminating the debt limit before Republicans take control of the House of Representative next year. The U.S. debt is already so high that it drags down economic growth and it is growing at an unsustainable rate. With publicly held debt projected to grow to 260 percent of GDP over the next 30 years, there is a real possibility of a fiscal crisis within this generation, during which investors would lose confidence in the U.S. government’s willingness to service its debt.

Reaching the debt limit is an important wake‐up call to legislators to correct unsustainable spending. It also provides legislators with political coverage and leverage to cut spending and reform policies that further indebt taxpayers. There is no other legislative action tool as powerful as the U.S. debt limit that has as consistent a history of leading to deficit‐reduction deals. Raising the debt limit without first adopting a credible fiscal stabilization plan that cuts spending and controls the growth in debt would be a mistake. It could rattle investors and worsen inflation expectations.

Congress might increase discretionary spending, further adding to deficits and fueling inflation.

Congress increased discretionary spending by 20 percent in 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Now that the pandemic has ended, members of Congress should return discretionary spending to pre‐pandemic (2019) levels, and cap discretionary spending growth at no more than 2 percent annually. If Congress were to adopt spending proposed by the Democratic‐led House of Representatives, discretionary spending would increase by $65 billion in year one and by $740 billion over the next 10 years, according to estimates by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. As pandemic needs wind down, so should government spending. Hundreds of billions of dollars in COVID‐related aid were wasted and continuing spending at such elevated levels would perpetuate government waste and could fuel inflation.

Congress might expand the welfare state by increasing eligibility for means‐tested programs.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers have bundled a package of retirement savings provisions with several unrelated provisions that would increase welfare spending. An amendment in the Senate Enhancing American Retirement Now (EARN) Act would expand the welfare state by significantly increasing the eligibility age for so‐called ABLE accounts, from 26 to 46. Funds in ABLE accounts do not count against Medicaid eligibility, ever, and account owners may accumulate up to $100,000 in assets while still maintaining eligibility for Supplemental Security Income cash benefits. By undermining asset tests, intended to ensure that government welfare benefits go toward individuals with the greatest need, the ABLE Age Adjustment Act amendment would increase means‐tested welfare spending and incentivize more individuals to apply for benefits.

There are also rumors that some lawmakers are considering attaching the Savings Penalty Elimination Act to the EARN Act. This bill would increase asset limits for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) from $2,000 for individuals and $3,000 for couples to $10,000 and $20,000, respectively, and index both to increase with inflation. Congress should not increase SSI asset limits until Congress includes bigger programmatic reforms that make benefit determinations fairer and improve incentives to work (especially among younger populations). According to Tad de Haven, then with the Cato Institute:

“Policymakers have liberalized eligibility standards for SSI’s benefits over the years, with the result that many people who are capable of working are making the choice to remain idle and receive benefits instead. Of particular concern is the growing number of children who are qualifying for SSI on the basis of a mental or behavioral disability. Many children who are capable of becoming productive working adults are being lured into long‐term government dependency.”

Tad de Haven recommends that Congress devolve the administration of the SSI program to the states to “allow greater innovation by state policymakers with their low‐income programs, who have stronger incentives to reduce taxpayer costs and maximize work incentives than do federal policymakers.” Mark Warshawsky, a senior fellow with the American Enterprise Institute has recommended additional commonsense reforms Congress should consider before expanding eligibility for SSI.

Congress might add a new taxpayer‐funded handout.

Another troubling provision in the Senate EARN Act would make the saver’s credit into a refundable match. The saver’s credit subsidizes retirement account contributions for individuals with low or moderate incomes. An individual that contributed $2,000 to a retirement savings account would receive an additional $1,000 match from federal taxpayers directly into their retirement account—even if that individual had no net tax liability. The EARN Act also allows beneficiaries to withdraw $1,000 every three years to pay for a wide range of qualifying emergencies. This new saver’s credit would be a taxpayer‐funded handout for low to moderate income earners who save money in retirement accounts.

Congress might increase deficits by $4,500 for every American household.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) has tallied up the long list of issues that Congress may take up during this lame duck session. CRFB estimates Congress might increase deficits by $555 billion in year one and by a total of $4.5 trillion over the next 10 years. That amounts to $4,500 for every American household next year. And that’s before counting higher interest costs from greater deficits.

Lame duck sessions empower an unaccountable Congress to make decisions after constituents have cast their votes. And they don’t just empower legislators who’ve been voted out of office or were planning to retire. They also shield re‐elected members of Congress who won’t face their constituents for at least another two years. And much can happen in two years to take constituents’ minds off votes cast during a lame duck session.

Congress should not use the threat of a government shutdown during a lame duck session to enact legislation that will increase deficits, undermine the Federal Reserve’s fight against inflation, or potentially rattle investors during uncertain economic times. We may all be better served by a Congress that takes an extended vacation from Thanksgiving all the way through Christmas.