Dems are puzzled—and annoyed—with the GOP’s government funding strategy

By Michael Jones

Two years ago, I committed one of the cardinal child sins: Texting while eating with a parent. I’d agreed to meet my mom in New York City to celebrate her birthday in all of Manhattan’s holiday splendor at perhaps the worst time for a congressional reporter: While lawmakers worked to pass a comprehensive funding package that would keep the government open through the end of the next fiscal year.

While Mom asked if we were visiting Bryant Park or the famous tree in Rockefeller Center first, I was head-down texting sources for any intelligence on the final contours of the bill to include in my final write-up once it passed.

That’s what we’ve come to expect each year: Congress fails to pass the 12 appropriations bills that support federal departments and agencies by the end-of-September deadline so it buys time with continuing resolutions—or CRs for short—until members, faced with the prospect of spending the most wonderful time of the year in Washington instead of home with loved ones, hammer out an omnibus that combines a dozen funding bills into one.

To be sure, omnis aren’t ideal if you ask most lawmakers. They’re rife with excess because it’s easier to tuck pet projects into a massive bill than one specific to a few agencies where it’s likelier to raise eyebrows and face scrutiny. Omnis are often negotiated in private among party leaders and senior appropriators without the input of the rank-and-file legislators who will have to vote on it and explain that decision to voters back home. And since time is of the essence, there’s little to no room for a fulsome amendment process to resolve policy disputes.

But dragging legislative business from one calendar year into the next instead of clearing the decks is viewed as even worse. And that’s exactly what’s about to happen in the next week or two when House Republican leadership introduces another CR to fund the government into next year.

“Appropriators believe that we should be doing an omnibus, which would finalize the budget for fiscal year 2025,” Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, told me this week. “Punting this into the first quarter of next year, the incoming administration—I mean, I don’t know why they want to saddle themselves with an end-of-year budget fight. Appropriators have the ability to get this done right now. We need to be able to do that. The speaker is the lone obstacle.”

Wasserman Schultz added that CRs put US national security at risk.

“Everyone, from the Secretary of Defense through the entire leadership of generals and our military, have said a CR kicking the can down the road doesn’t allow them to make sure that they have what they need to be able to keep our country safe.”

Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), a top Senate Democratic appropriator, told me he would much rather pass a funding bill before the end of the year too.

“In an ideal world or a better world, we would do it,” he said. “But we have a deadline, and we need to do something by that deadline where the government shuts down, and better to have a continuing resolution than nothing at all.”

With unified control of government, Republicans believe they can replace last year’s compromise funding agreement with conservative priorities—including cuts to social safety-net programs, restrictions on reproductive health care, and the elimination of Biden-eta climate policies.

Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and incoming Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) have outlined an ambitious agenda for Trump’s second term: Increasing funding for border security and domestic energy production, extending the 2017 Trump tax cuts, and investigating both Democrats’ handling of their Jan. 6 probe and Special Counsel Jack Smith’s inquiry into Trump’s role in the insurrection and handling of classified documents. 

But to Wasserman Schultz’s point: It feels like political malpractice to anchor that agenda with an appropriations distraction. The first Trump administration provides a clear example: the 2017 funding bill wasn’t signed until May, well past the crucial 100-day mark that typically measures a president’s early success. Several Hill Democrats I’ve interviewed since last month’s election view this as a preview of the turbulence ahead in Trump 2.0.

To complicate matters, Johnson will enter the next Congress with practically an evenly divided House. His 220–215 majority will shrink three seats due to resignations and nominations to President-elect Trump’s cabinet. With full attendance on both sides, a single defection could tank a party-line bill since a tie defeats a bill in the House. A handful of House conservatives universally oppose CRs on principle so the speaker is already working at a deficit, which adds to the leverage House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries brings to the negotiating table—along with the two seats he gained in last month’s election.

Plus, the CR is one of the final must-pass bills of the year, so party leaders look to attach other pieces of legislation to it. Johnson is likely to add a disaster aid bill to the upcoming CR, a move that cost him more conservative votes if the aid isn’t paid for with cuts to other government programs. The House math will force Johnson to consider bringing the CR to the floor under suspension of the rules—a fast-track process requiring a two-thirds majority vote with limited debate and no amendments.

This is why Democrats are puzzled: Whether it’s now or later, Republicans will need Democrats to handle their basic governing responsibilities. Kicking this year’s funding business into next is delaying the inevitable.

“The American people want us to work together, and that requires Republicans tuning out the most extreme voices,” House Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar (Calif.) told reporters this week. “Republicans do not have a mandate to chase the most extreme voices in their conference. They have a mandate from the American people to work with us, to make their lives better.”

Michael Jones is an independent Capitol Hill correspondent and contributor for COURIER. He is the author of Once Upon a Hill, a newsletter about Congressional politics.