Navigating the Quirks of Government Funding: An Annual Tradition

Make sure to sign up for CNN's What Matters newsletter to receive a version of this story directly in your inbox. It's free and easy to do so, just click here.

In the world of Washington, funding deadlines that are supposed to be followed according to law are often seen as more of a suggestion. This leads to the constant looming threat of a partial government shutdown.

Lawmakers have not yet passed the 12 funding bills for the 2024 fiscal year, which began on October 1. These bills are important for determining discretionary government spending, such as defense funding.

Now, what exactly is a CR?

Lawmakers have not been able to come to a final agreement on the larger bills. As a result, they have passed a series of temporary bills known as "continuing resolutions" or "CRs" in the language of the federal government, which can sometimes feel like its own separate dialect of English.

In an attempt to simplify the terminology, journalists often translate "continuing resolution" or "CR" into plain English by calling it a "stopgap" spending bill or a "short-term" spending bill.

Lawmakers recently passed another short-term extension for a part of the government. President Joe Biden signed the law, giving Congress more time to negotiate spending five months after the original deadline.

The latest in a series of deadlines caused by these temporary spending bills is next Friday, March 8, for part of the government and March 22 for the rest of it.

How often do they do this?

Continuing resolutions happen pretty much every year. It's not something out of the ordinary, but rather a regular event.

Since 1977, October 1 has been the official start date for the federal fiscal year. In almost fifty years, there have only been three years where lawmakers didn't pass a continuing resolution. The most recent year without any CRs was in 1997, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Lawmakers don’t seem to be making much effort to pass bills on time. Federal discretionary spending is typically divided into 12 appropriations bills. However, for the past twenty years, lawmakers have not managed to pass a single one by October 1. Since 1997, they have never completed more than half of the appropriations bills on time.

Instead of passing individual bills, they combine them into larger packages known as "omnibus" bills, which are usually approved in December or later. For example, in 1997, all spending bills were merged into an omnibus bill. According to the Government Accountability Office, in 2017, the final bills were not approved until after May 1.

These bills are definitely better than dealing with a partial shutdown, don't you think? On one hand, it's a relief to have these bills in place instead of facing the chaos that comes with a partial government shutdown. We all know how disruptive, inefficient, and unnecessary those can be.

CRs are a unique type of inefficiency and disruption. Even though government activities carry on, CRs still have an impact. According to GAO reports, CRs can "delay hiring, lead to funding uncertainties, and add administrative challenges."

In years such as this one, when CRs cover a significant portion of the year, these impacts are magnified.

The primary purpose of Congress approving funding is to provide direction to the federal government. They allocate funds for specific programs and may reduce funding for others. However, with continuing resolutions (CRs), these adjustments are typically not made.

In 2018, Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, highlighted the inefficiency of CRs. She stated that when Congress bypasses the regular appropriations process and relies on CRs, it undermines the thousands of hours agencies spend on budget planning.

How does this impact Americans?

I spoke with CNN's Tami Luhby about how the inconsistent funding process and the reliance on previous year's funding levels can impact the government's ability to deliver services to the public. She highlighted examples showing that the impact is especially significant for individuals relying on government assistance for food and utility bills.

WIC, a program that helps low-income pregnant women, new mothers, and young children with nutrition assistance and education, is facing a $1 billion shortfall for the current fiscal year. According to the latest federal data, enrollment has increased to 6.6 million people in November, up from just under 6.4 million a year earlier.

If Congress decides to maintain the current funding level for the rest of the fiscal year, approximately 2 million pregnant women, new moms, and children could lose access to benefits, as reported by the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Many states are reducing the federal utility assistance they provide to residents facing high heating and cooling bills. The demand for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) is at an all-time high due to soaring electricity and natural gas arrearages. The National Energy Assistance Directors Association started tracking these figures during the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020.

Lawmakers have increased funding for LIHEAP by several billion dollars in recent years, but the funding levels for fiscal year 2024 have not been determined yet. States are preparing for receiving only the base funding of around $4 billion. This means they may have to decrease the benefits households receive, help fewer people, or cut cooling programs to manage the limited funding.

They are waiting to see if Congress provides the additional $1.6 billion in support that the Biden administration requested in October.

What’s a better idea?

The Partnership for Public Service argues that the federal government should not operate in a way that private sector companies would not. They advocate for good governance and propose transitioning the government funding process to a two-year schedule instead of annually.

Constantly stopping and starting can hinder innovation and security within the workforce. One suggestion is the implementation of automatic CRs, similar to automatic overdraft protection. This would allow Congress to focus on debating larger spending bills instead of wasting time on temporary ones.

Will lawmakers be able to solve the funding issue this year?

Back in January, Republicans in charge of the House and Democrats in control of the Senate were close to reaching a funding agreement. This agreement would have placed some funding restrictions for 2024 and 2025, as requested by spending-conscious Republicans.

House Speaker Mike Johnson deserves credit for avoiding a shutdown by keeping the government open and using Democratic votes to pass short-term funding measures while they work on a larger bill.

According to CNN's Capitol Hill team, lawmakers have agreed on six funding bills that they plan to pass before March 8. These bills cover departments such as Agriculture-FDA, Commerce, Justice, Science, Energy and Water Development, Interior, Military Construction-Veterans Affairs, and Transportation-Housing and Urban Development.

Lawmakers are set to vote on the remaining six appropriations bills before March 22. These bills include Defense, Financial Services and General Government, Homeland Security, Labor-Health and Human Services, the Legislative Branch, and State and Foreign Operations.

There is hope that they will manage to sort everything out just in time to begin working on next year's funding. However, it's best not to expect the 2025 spending bills to be completed on schedule.

Editor's P/S:

The article highlights the chronic issue of delayed funding deadlines in Washington, leading to the constant threat of government shutdowns. Despite the importance of timely funding for discretionary government spending, lawmakers have consistently failed to pass the necessary bills on time. Instead, they resort to temporary "continuing resolutions" (CRs), which provide a stopgap solution but have significant drawbacks.

The reliance on CRs has resulted in funding uncertainties, delayed hiring, and administrative challenges. It has also hindered the ability of government agencies to effectively plan and allocate resources. The article raises concerns about the impact on essential programs such as WIC and LIHEAP, which provide essential assistance to vulnerable populations. While lawmakers have made progress on some funding bills, it remains uncertain whether they will be able to resolve the issue within the upcoming deadlines. The article suggests that a more efficient and predictable funding process is needed to avoid the recurring disruptions and inefficiencies caused by the current system.