the opposite of governing...

would be to put the federal budget on a path of automatic cuts of specific amounts- the so called  sequester (quickly, when Congress raised the debt ceiling to avoid US default on its obligations, they passed 1.2 Trillion in cuts unless the supercommittee came to an agreement).  Sequester cuts would be made without the careful judgment needed to obtain a reasonable result.  It treats for example dollars needed to feed children, or operate hospitals equally with dollars used to buy new office furniture. There are some lower cuts for certain low income and social security type programs, but those cuts tend to affect the most vulnerable of Americans. The Department of Defense for example would have managed cuts of 450 billion over ten years but feel that to double those cuts under the sequester would remove funds needed for military families, significantly reduce the effectiveness of the military. Whether true or not, it is apparent that substantial cuts to highways, schools, military and many more federal functions need careful consideration, the Congress acting in good faith  to do its best for the American people.

The Constitution requires only a few things, but one is that there be an annual consideration by the Congress of the national budget and a determination of how and for what we spend. The sequestration condition to the budget ceiling is Constitutionally flawed in that it restrict the powers of the next Congress to do what every Congress must do- use its best judgment to determine spending. As a policy it reflects a disregard for fundamental democracy.  Do the people have a right to decide--then to change that decision--the answer except for fundamental rights is  -YES; and the Budget Control Act says a very arbitrary, narrow and unthinking --NO. If it keeps the sides at the table to resolve the problem on a long term basis, then it would have served an important and useful purpose.