In recent years, the U.S. government has found itself entangled in a seemingly unending loop of short-term funding resolutions. As lawmakers continue to kick the can down the road with temporary fixes, Americans are left wondering why their elected officials can't seem to settle on a long-term solution. Most recently, House Speaker Mike Johnson introduced yet another stopgap bill to fund the government through December 30th. The bill proposes to increase defense spending by $6 billion, cut domestic spending by $13 billion, and boost funding for administration, customs enforcement, and veterans healthcare. Yet, as expected, the proposal met immediate resistance—two Republicans have vowed to vote no, and House Democrats signaled their united opposition.
This situation encapsulates the dysfunction that has become all too familiar in Washington, D.C. Why does this keep happening? Why do we constantly face the threat of a government shutdown? And what are the long-term consequences of this cycle of short-termism?
Why Short-Term Bills?
The most obvious answer is gridlock. Congress is polarized, and this polarization makes it incredibly difficult to pass comprehensive, long-term appropriations bills. Ideally, each year Congress should pass 12 appropriations bills to fund various parts of the federal government. These bills go through the regular order, where each chamber debates and amends them before final passage. In practice, though, very few of these bills pass on time.
Appropriators from both parties have been negotiating for weeks to establish a top-line spending number—a benchmark that would guide the allocations for the 12 individual appropriations bills. Despite repeated assurances that they are "close" to an agreement, no comprehensive deal has emerged. The lack of agreement on the broader budget parameters makes it nearly impossible to proceed with the full suite of appropriations.
So, instead, Congress turns to Continuing Resolutions (CRs). These stopgap measures extend current funding levels for a set period of time to prevent a government shutdown. While CRs buy time, they also perpetuate uncertainty and often include provisions that no longer reflect current needs.
Political Tug-of-War
This most recent CR is particularly contentious because it includes policy changes. It increases defense spending, which Republicans generally support, and cuts domestic spending, which Democrats fiercely oppose. It’s not a "clean" CR—it’s a political statement. GOP leaders have emphasized that the bill maintains funding for veterans healthcare, a priority for both parties, but Democrats argue that the cuts will harm essential programs like nutrition assistance, education, and housing.
The divide is stark. Democrats argue that the bill undermines the social safety net at a time when Americans are struggling with inflation, rising healthcare costs, and housing insecurity. On the other hand, Republicans frame the cuts as a necessary step toward fiscal responsibility.
What's at Stake?
The implications of these repeated short-term fixes are significant. Here are some of the key issues at stake:
Operational Uncertainty for Agencies: Federal agencies can't plan effectively when their funding is in limbo. Short-term CRs prevent agencies from starting new projects, hiring staff, or making long-term investments.
Economic Disruption: The constant threat of a shutdown disrupts markets and undermines business confidence. It also affects contractors, nonprofits, and state and local governments that rely on federal funding.
National Security Risks: Defense agencies also struggle to manage operations under CRs. While they may receive increased funding in some cases, they still face delays in procurement, training, and strategy execution.
Erosion of Public Trust: Americans lose faith in their government when it fails to perform basic functions. The inability to pass a budget sends a message of dysfunction and instability.
International Credibility: When the world sees America unable to manage its own finances, it diminishes our standing on the global stage. Allies and adversaries alike view this as a sign of weakness.
The Political Calculus
The current Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, is attempting to balance the demands of the Republican base—including the hard-right Freedom Caucus—with the practical need to avoid a government shutdown. Johnson’s proposal is designed to appease conservatives by including spending cuts while still keeping the government open.
But it’s a tightrope walk. Democrats aren’t buying it, and moderate Republicans are wary of the political fallout from another funding crisis. House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries has emphasized the importance of regular order and bipartisan compromise. He suggests a shorter-term CR to allow appropriators more time to finish their work, rather than pushing through a longer-term measure that cuts vital services.
Meanwhile, the Biden administration has largely stayed in the background, encouraging both sides to reach a compromise. President Biden has worked the phones behind the scenes, trying to bring hardliners on board. But with 2024 looming, politics may outweigh pragmatism.
Historical Context
This is not a new phenomenon. Since 1977, Congress has only passed all 12 appropriations bills on time four times. The last time it happened was in 1997. In the decades since, CRs and omnibus bills—massive packages that bundle multiple appropriations into a single vote—have become the norm.
The consequences of this system are evident. In 2013, a standoff over funding led to a 16-day government shutdown. In 2018-2019, a dispute over border wall funding resulted in a record 35-day shutdown. Each time, federal employees go without pay, public services are disrupted, and confidence in government erodes.
Can It Be Fixed?
Fixing the broken budget process requires structural reform and political courage. Here are some potential solutions:
Biennial Budgeting: Shift from an annual to a two-year budget cycle to give Congress more time for oversight and planning.
Automatic CRs: Implement automatic funding extensions to prevent shutdowns when Congress fails to act.
Nonpartisan Budget Committees: Create independent commissions to recommend spending levels and priorities.
Incentives for Regular Order: Reward members of Congress for adhering to the appropriations process, perhaps by linking pay or bonuses to performance.
Public Accountability: Increase transparency and public engagement to hold lawmakers accountable for inaction.
The Human Element
Behind all the politics and numbers are real people—federal workers who miss paychecks, veterans waiting for care, families relying on food assistance, students needing Pell Grants. These are not abstract policy debates; they have concrete consequences for millions of Americans.
Every time a shutdown looms or a CR is passed at the last minute, it creates stress and instability for workers and families. It’s not just about dollars and cents—it’s about dignity, reliability, and the basic expectation that government should function.
What’s Next?
As of now, Johnson’s stopgap bill faces an uphill battle. Without support from Democrats and with opposition from hard-right Republicans, it’s unclear how the bill will pass. Even if it does, it only postpones the problem until December 30th. Unless Congress can agree on long-term funding, we will face the same crisis again in just a few months.
The real question is whether lawmakers are willing to break the cycle. Are they prepared to put aside partisan warfare and do the hard work of governance? Or will we continue to lurch from one funding crisis to the next?
Conclusion
The endless reliance on short-term spending bills reflects a deeper dysfunction in American politics. It’s a symptom of polarization, mistrust, and the erosion of institutional norms. While CRs may keep the lights on, they are no substitute for real budgeting. The American people deserve better.
As we look toward the future, it’s time for Congress to return to regular order, recommit to bipartisan compromise, and remember that governance is not about scoring political points—it’s about serving the public. Only then
0 Comments