Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Congress

Is Another Government Shutdown Coming?

Next week, Congress will have to choose between a rushed omnibus bill or a long-term continuing resolution that comes with a possible 1 percent spending cut.

Eric Boehm | 2.22.2024 10:35 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
U.S. Capitol Building reflecting on water | Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Newscom
(Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Newscom)

When lawmakers return to Washington next week, they will have just days to avoid a partial government shutdown that could occur on March 1—the first of a series of new fiscal deadlines created during the most recent near-shutdown in November.

It seems highly unlikely that Congress will actually pass a complete budget deal before the March 1 deadline to fund the Departments of Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, Veterans Affairs, and more. It's also unlikely to happen before a slew of other short-term continuing resolutions expire on March 8.

In light of all that, some conservatives are now pushing Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R–La.) to consider a year-long continuing resolution—as opposed to a possible omnibus bill being rushed to the floor for a vote at the last minute. In a letter to Johnson on Wednesday, the House Freedom Caucus laid out a list of policies its members said should not be included in an omnibus package designed "behind closed doors" and then put up for a vote.

Congress is in session just three days before a partial government shutdown begins March 1.

We need lower spending levels and real policy wins.

If you can't get either, why proceed with higher than Pelosi spending and preserving all Biden's policies?

We need an update. pic.twitter.com/FMFbVJWfP8

— House Freedom Caucus (@freedomcaucus) February 21, 2024

"There are MANY other policies and personnel that Congress should not be funding, and a failure to eliminate them will reduce the probability that the appropriations bills will be supported by even a majority of Republicans," the group wrote in the letter to Johnson, effectively threatening to withhold votes from an omnibus deal that it does not like.

The policies included in the House Freedom Caucus' list of demands are a mix of what you'd expect from that group—some are sincere attempts at trimming government, while others are fodder for fundraising emails and social media clips.

What's more important than any of those specific proposals, however, is what this letter indicates about the ongoing fight within the Republican caucus over how the federal budget ought to be put together.

Members of the Freedom Caucus have spent years (dating back to its time as a more libertarian and less Trumpy body) advocating for a return to the so-called regular order in which Congress passes each of the 12 annual appropriations bills separately.  That hasn't happened since 1996. Advocates for a return to the regular budget process argue that an over-reliance on continuing resolutions (which hold spending levels steady for an agreed-to period of time) and omnibus bills (which combine multiple appropriations bills into a single up-or-down vote) have materially weakened Congress' ability to wield its power of the purse and have concentrated power in the hands of congressional leaders at the expense of the rank and file.

So why would the Freedom Caucus now advocate for a continuing resolution? Because its members fear that an omnibus bill rushed through before the March 1 or March 8 deadlines will undo much of the progress that's been made toward the goal of actually negotiating and passing each appropriations bill in turn. The House has passed seven of the 12 since the start of last year (while the Senate has passed just three), so this gambit from the Freedom Caucus is best understood as an attempt to buy more time for this important project to continue.

There is, however, one additional wrinkle. As part of the deal to raise the debt limit last year, hardline conservatives successfully included a provision that would implement an automatic, across-the-board 1 percent spending cut for the entire government on April 30—unless all 12 appropriations bills are passed by that deadline.

That provision was meant to force all sides to the negotiating table so the appropriations bills would get finished within a reasonable amount of time. It might also give Johnson an incentive to ram through an omnibus bill now—thus defusing the April 30 cuts—rather than waiting to see what can get done in the next two months.

That leaves Johnson with a difficult choice. Democrats are unlikely to support a yearlong continuing resolution because of the potential for those automatic cuts to kick in at the end of April*, but a significant chunk of Republicans will oppose an omnibus bill that thwarts the committee-level work that's been done toward the goal of passing all 12 appropriations bills.

How Johnson proceeds from here will determine the future of his term as speaker—or very well may end it. More importantly, next week's action in the House is likely to signal whether a return to "regular order" is actually possible, or whether Congress will default back to the bad budget-making practices that have buried the government in debt.

*CORRECTION: This post has been updated to correct the timing of the automatic cuts. 

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: AI Contracts Woke Mind Virus

Eric Boehm is a reporter at Reason.

CongressGovernment ShutdownGovernment SpendingBudgetBudget cutsDebt CeilingFederal governmentPolitics
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (41)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Moonrocks   1 year ago

    Is Another Government Shutdown Coming?

    If only.

    1. Jerry B.   1 year ago

      And they say that like it’s a bad thing.

  2. MasterThief   1 year ago

    A few mischaracterizations here. Massie slipped the provision in there. He did so explicitly with the hopes that they fail to pass a budget and they could actually reduce spending.

  3. Minadin   1 year ago

    Hopefully. Maybe this one will last long enough that people will notice.

    We can start by taking every single person in the DC metro area who draws a federal paycheck and firing them immediately with no severance and no chance for re-hire.

    1. MollyGodiva   1 year ago

      Who will manage the Department of Defense?

      1. Minadin   1 year ago

        No one. It will save billions. Bring everyone home. No foreign bases. Quit intervening in other people's countries. If people aren't actively hurting us, leave them alone. Just protect this country. Like most other countries do with their militaries.

        Then hire new people for oversight of the reduced mission.

        1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

          The Russian propagandist has entered the chat.

          1. Minadin   1 year ago

            Libertarian individualists for foreign interventions and regime change? How do you square US foreign military actions with the NAP?

          2. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

            That's not me. Stop impersonating me.

            1. Minadin   1 year ago

              Fair, I muted the imposter and it was not you.

          3. One-Punch_Man   1 year ago

            I don't see Pelosi here. Worried about Russia but not China. Is this you big guy?

            DOD is too busy deciding what pronouns and colors to pic currently.

          4. CE   1 year ago

            And his name is.... John Quincy Adamsovich?

  4. sarcasmic   1 year ago

    There is, however, one additional wrinkle. As part of the deal to raise the debt limit last year, hardline conservatives successfully included a provision that would implement an automatic, across-the-board 1 percent spending cut for the entire government on April 30—unless all 12 appropriations bills are passed by that deadline.

    Is that a 1 percent cut in the actual budget, or a 1 percent cut in the baseline?

    1. Yuno Hoo   1 year ago

      Or a 1 percent cut in the rate of increase of government spending?

      1. Gaear Grimsrud   1 year ago

        1 percent cut?! WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?

        1. Its_Not_Inevitable   1 year ago

          Grandma's already gone with just the possibility.

        2. CE   1 year ago

          How is Biden supposed to govern on a mere 99% of 6.1 trillion dollars?

    2. MWAocdoc   1 year ago

      ... or an imaginary 1% cut in the imaginary budget? Download the new LARP game that's going viral called, "Congressional Budget Process!"

    3. CE   1 year ago

      Wow, a one percent cut qualifies as "hardline" conservatives now.... I would call them "limp-wristed" conservatives, but you can't say that any more.

  5. (Impeach Robert L. Peters) Weigel's Cock Ring   1 year ago

    Remember the days when libertarians thought spending cuts were a good thing?

    Now, supporting a 1% across the board spending cut makes you a "hardline conservative" according to the communist faggots and lipstick lesbians of Reason like Boehm.

    1. CE   1 year ago

      I would call a 5% across the board spending cut a good start.

  6. Dillinger   1 year ago

    whatever happened to the fuck you cut spending guy?

    1. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf   1 year ago

      They cut his job.

      1. Dillinger   1 year ago

        100% likely

  7. MollyGodiva   1 year ago

    The Republicans have had plenty of time to carefully plan out a proposed budget that cuts spending without all the stupid stuff the "Freedom" Caucus wants. They should have taken the time to negotiate with the Senate. But instead they wait till the current budget is almost over and demand reckless cuts.

    The federal budget can be balanced...it just takes legislators willing to do the hard work.

    1. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf   1 year ago

      A. You seem to think "Republicans" are a single Borg-like entity, all thinking alike.

      B. You claim you want hard work. That means negotiations and arguments when talking about legislators. It does not mean obeying a single leader, lockstep. That is exactly what is playing out among Republicans right now, that very hard work you claim to both want and sneer at.

      C. It takes two to tango. You seem to think Democrats have done their part and now it is up to Republicans to do the "hard work" of falling in line.

    2. Sevo   1 year ago

      "...demand reckless cuts."

      ONE PERCENT!
      Molly ain't real bright, is she?

      1. CE   1 year ago (edited)

        What’s reckless is a two-trillion-dollar deficit. How about a not-reckless-at-all 14% percent cut, to at least chop the deficit down to 1 trillion?

        The government got by on 4 trillion just 6 years ago, why does it need to spend 7 trillion now? It seems pretty clear that 6 trillion would still be plenty.

    3. One-Punch_Man   1 year ago

      1% is a reckless spending cut? You really think the senate, controlled by Democrats, would agree to cuts of anything? They have to bring home the bacon to stay in power.

      If Congress every cut 1%, it would be a win.

    4. CE   1 year ago

      Meanwhile, your party has stopped talking about Trump adding more to the debt than any other President, as Biden closes in on the record....

    5. EISTAU Gree-Vance   1 year ago

      Lol. Oh really, Molly? The dems will agree to cuts as long as they’re not “reckless”?

      Since merely slowing increases in spending brings cries of “draconian” from morons like you, I’d say there is no way to work with you drama queens.

  8. Sevo   1 year ago

    "...a long-term continuing resolution that comes with a possible 1 percent spending cut."

    ONE PERCENT!
    End of the world!

    1. CE   1 year ago

      People will be homeless in San Francisco, and so lacking in health care, they will start shoplifting at pharmacies.

      1. Minadin   1 year ago

        They might even shit on the sidewalks.

  9. Longtobefree   1 year ago

    By government shutdown I assume you mean 'unscheduled vacation for the least productive federal employees'?

    1. One-Punch_Man   1 year ago

      I work at the Johnson Space Center (NASA). Productive and unproductive employees get vacation. Than they get their back pay when they come back. Us contractors, we have to work.

  10. One-Punch_Man   1 year ago

    Does a budget even matter? 1.5 trillion dollar deficit this year and for the foreseeable future. Sure Congress cuts 1% but than somehow we still have a large deficit.

    Wait, Tony, Jeff, Shrike, and others will blame it on 'tax cuts', yet the government takes in more money than ever before.

    1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

      Would a 1% cut matter? Depends. Is it a cut in the budget or a cut in the budget increase?
      Regardless, the federal government doesn't have a revenue problem. It has a spending problem.
      Want to get rid of the budget deficit? Mathematically it's easy peasy, though politically impossible. Let inflation do the work. Freeze the budget until revenue catches up with spending. That's it. Don't even have to cut the budget. Just lock it in for five or ten years.

      1. CE   1 year ago

        Which was similar to the campaign proposals from Rand Paul and Gary Johnson, both of which would have balanced the budget in 8 years. But voters saw that as far too radical, compared to driving the convertible over the cliff.

  11. CE   1 year ago

    Hopefully.

    Just no back pay this time.
    And get rid of the non-essential workers, permanently. You gotta start saving money somewhere.

  12. voluntaryist   1 year ago

    Congress pretends to care about us, pretends to budget with the money they steal, pretends to be "working" to fix the problems they create for their benefit. And the voters pretend their lies are truth.
    Why? Why do people let themselves be deceived, controlled, robbed? Is self-governance so frightening? Is self-esteem so low?
    When will the voters finally stop voting to be ruled by the deadly threats of law, against all reason? When will they start defending their rights, especially their right to rule themselves and enjoy all the benefits of the non-violent private sector by making politics non-violent, peaceful, voluntary cooperation? It's only logical!

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Can We End Racism by Ending the Idea of Race Itself?

Rachel Ferguson | From the June 2025 issue

The Supreme Court Said States Can't Discriminate in Alcohol Sales. They're Doing It Anyway.

C. Jarrett Dieterle | 5.24.2025 7:00 AM

Cocaine Hippos, Monkey Copyrights, and a Horse Named Justice: The Debate Over Animal Personhood

C.J. Ciaramella | From the June 2025 issue

Harvard's Best Protection Is To Get Off the Federal Teat

Autumn Billings | 5.23.2025 6:16 PM

Trump's Mass Cancellation of Student Visas Illustrates the Lawlessness of His Immigration Crackdown

Jacob Sullum | 5.23.2025 5:30 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!