(FIRST OPTION TYPO - "CAN'T" not "CAN", ie no program can be funded unless House and Senate agree)
There have been government shut downs in the past in relation to the size of the budget/debit. But this one is a very different matter.
The question is: Once any agency, law, or action is voted into effect, it will continue forever and the amount of money that only ONE side of Congress wants MUST be spent on it or the entire government is shut down and it's the fault of the side not voting for it.
For example, Vietnam and the war in Iraq. Congress voted for military action. Under the Democrats, Obama's and most of the media's view, once that resolution/was passed, LBJ, Nixon, and W. Bush could spend hundreds of billions, trillions or trillions upon trillions - and that president would ONLY need on side of Congress to agree. If Republicans in the House agreed with W. Bush to spend trillions of dollars on genocidal war even using weapons of mass destruction - and vowing to shut down the entire government if the Senate won't agree - if the Senate refused to vote to do so - then the Democrats in the Senate are anarchists and extortionists entirely responsible for government shutdown.
Another example would be "faith based initiatives" - also which is law. Under the Democrat's theory, if W. Bush and House Republicans decided to give TRILLIONS of dollars to certain churches under that law - the Democrat Senate would have NO choice but to agree to that in the budget - and if not then the Democrats - offering to vote to pay for everything else - would still be responsible for a government shutdown until the Democrat Senate yielded. OR, if both the House and Senate refused, but the President vetoed any budget without those trillions for his favor religion, then it would be the fault of Congress because "faith based initiatives are the law."
In my opinion, it takes BOTH sides of Congress AND the president for the government to spend money on anything - and on how much that is. If they do NOT agree on an item, that items isn't paid for. That would seem the core of how the entire system is designed.
The precedent being set? Once any agency, law, regulations, military action, etc is made "law," it only takes a demand for the House OR by the Senate OR by the President for any unlimited amounts of money for that money demand to have to be met. If it isn't, they the right thing to do is to shutdown the entire government - and it is the fault of the branch or party that wouldn't vote to spend it.
And since BOTH sides can ALWAYS do that, all negotiations are always each side wanting MORE $$ for their own agendas. Thus, we understand why the budget and debt now grows massively under BOTH political parties. The NEW concept that both houses of Congress AND the president are 3 total dictators able to demand MORE, MORE, MORE money and the other 2 MUST agree or they are "anarchists shutting down the entire government" is a terrible precedence.
In the past and I think the design is that it took both Houses of Congress and the President's agreement - each year - to spend money on anything. Now it is being claimed that it takes the agreement of all 3 to stop any spending or spending increase that anyone 1 of the 3 wants.
Which one do you think it SHOULD BE:
It should take both branches of Congress and the president to approve spending money on any item, agenda or law?
It should take both branches of Congress and the president to stop any spending demand by 1 of those 3 governmental entities?
Are House Republicans REQUIRED to vote to fund what they do not want to fund? Would Democrats be forced to fund a war at any costs forever as long as Republicans in the House wanted it on behalf of a Republican President?