Where are you so I can shake your hand! I was in the middle of typing a response similar to this, and then I read yours. Thank you!IMO, it will take more political courage to prevent a shutdown than to precipitate one. If anything, the occurrence of a shutdown might well demonstrate an example of leadership failure given how much time had been available to negotiate a compromise, especially if non-germane matters led to the shutdown.
Furthermore, if the dispute is truly about the amount of budget reductions, then a straight funding bill without any policy riders should be feasible. After all, Congress would merely be appropriating funds at levels more consistent with budget realities, not attempting to legislate new policy that has little to do with the nation's budget situation. Furthermore, if fiscal policy is the overriding priority, efforts to legislate policy that are extraneous to fiscal matters would represent a diversion from the priority at hand.
Finally, the one-week continuing resolution (CR) may actually be counterproductive in that it could increase prospects of a longer-duration shutdown. The proposed CR is not a straight one-week funding bill. Military funding for the remainder of the fiscal year would be provided in the draft CR.
Hence, if no deal were reached after another week had passed, it would actually be easier for many legislators to rationalize a shutdown and to dig in for an extended period of time under the assumption that one of the core functions of government would not be affected. That, in turn, could actually promote greater rigidity which would undermine prospects for compromise. Hence, reasonable as the CR might seem, its design could actually increase the prospects for a more prolonged shutdown. After all, if the military's needs were being met, the political risks and consequences of holding out over divisive social issues would be much less than if no such funding were being provided.