Dealing with Budget Issues at the Federal Level

Two different ways of getting funds to agencies are 1) to pass a short-term funding bill that will extend the debt limit for a few more months, and 2) to tie in Hurricane-relief aid with the budget bill so that there is more incentive for a bipartisan resolution. The course of events could go in any one direction, but the likelihood of a government shutdown and/or default is very low: a shutdown or default would benefit no one, there would be a great deal of finger pointing, and the Trump Administration would suffer another defeat that would signal ineptitude of the highest order.
A short-term funding bill to extend the debt limit would be advantageous for a number of reasons: first, it would allow the federal government to continue operating without fear or pressure of having to produce a budget by a fast-approaching deadline; second, it would signal that sides are willing to give things more time to play out while agencies are allowed to continue to work. A continuing resolution would essentially be an exercise in kicking the can down the road, which might not be entirely palatable to all—but the reality of the situation is that can-kicking has been a Congressional hallmark for many years and practically resembles a professional sport at this point. Should the president agree to sign off on more can-kicking (though he derided as much just four years earlier in a Tweet that he made about this very same subject), the budgetary concerns now facing Congress would be set on the back burner while other pressing matters are given attention. This cyclical activity of rotating one pot of concerns for another, while pushing matters ahead with extensions and CR’s has become a staple in financing (even the central banks seem to love the idea of distorting reality by pumping markets full of fiat). Plans and budgets are about as necessary in the current bureaucracy as water is to fire. Few politicians want the responsibility of hindering present agendas, but present financial burdens are equally pressing.
The alternative is to tie-in some sort of disaster relief (Irma is fast approaching Florida and could be even more devastating than Harvey was to Houston). By tying in aid to these states, politicians can save face without actually confronting the irresponsibility of putting forward a budget that adds more debt to the nation and further mires the coming generations with interest payments that will suck up the bulk of taxes. In the long run it means that taxes will likely rise as servicing the national debt will become so pressing that there will be no alternative. Yet by tying in relief, politicians get to look like they are doing a great service to the nation even as they are actually burdening it. It is a sleight of hand practice that gets the public to look over here at what the right hand is doing—ensuring that there are enough funds for FEMA, the Coast Guard, etc.—while simultaneously sweeping the ball under the rug and getting the public (through the media spin) to ignore the fact that the national debt has just increased by $10 trillion.
Either way, there is no getting around the fact that without considerable, substantial and painful cuts to a good majority of the programs and safety nets that the government spends money on, the budgetary process of the federal government will never resemble anything close to a responsible plan. This is why the continuing resolution is nowadays a much sought-after prize: it allows nothing to be squarely faced (and to be fair considering the state of current politics there is unlikely to be any square facing of any real issues) and for government to go on operating as though everything were fine, as though there were no day of judgment, and as though the government owed no real financial accountability to the public.