Bipartisan Bill to End Government Shutdowns Puts Democrats in Bind
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
After utilizing a procedural tactic to derail a bipartisan government funding bill, Republican Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin has said he'll provide the consent needed to move forward on the measure only if another bipartisan bill also gets a vote.
The Prevent Government Shutdowns Act, introduced by lead backers Republican Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma and Democratic Senator Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire, would stop federal shutdowns if spending agreements are not reached by the year's deadline.
It would do so by triggering a Continued Resolution (CR) that would maintain federal spending at its current level and institute mandates that limit official travel, congressional recesses, and the consideration of legislation unrelated to spending until the government funding process is complete.
"If we get the vote, it'd be really interesting to see how anybody can explain voting no," Johnson told Newsweek . "This is such a simple, common sense, reasonable bill."
The government will go into shutdown on October 1 if Congress cannot pass its 12 annual spending measures. The trajectory toward shutdown worsened when Johnson prevented the bills funding the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development from coming to votes.
However, House Republicans have struggled to unify behind even their own partisan spending bills, which have been largely written as a form of conservative messaging rather than as pieces of legislation with real hope of passing the Democratic-controlled Senate .
This has taken some pressure off the Senate to pass its own bills, easing the demand on Senate Leader Charles Schumer to bring the Shutdowns Act to the floor. Senator Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat, explained why the bipartisan bill does not appeal to him and might not fare well with other members of his caucus.
"I generally don't support gimmicks to force us to do our job, and I also think for people who want to flat-fund government permanently, this is a mechanism to get it done," Murphy told Newsweek . "There will be a constituency here who wants to starve government and will see automatic CRs as a mechanism to do that."
"By setting up a status quo where Head Start funding [for low-income preschool children] doesn't grow, where the [National Institutes of Health] funding doesn't grow, where there's no funding for Ukraine, it ultimately advantages people who want all these programs to wither on the vine," Murphy added.
The 2023 version of the bill currently has nine Republican co-sponsors, and both Republican Senators Josh Hawley of Missouri and Joni Ernst of Iowa, a member of GOP leadership, told Newsweek they support the bill.
In addition to Hassan, Democratic Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona co-sponsored the bill along with Independent Senators Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Angus King of Maine, both of whom are aligned with Senate Democrats in committees.
Hasssan told Newsweek she supports her bill but opted not to speak on it further. Kelly offered his support, stressing that shutdowns have a significant impact on Americans who rely on federal paychecks and benefits to pay their bills. He noted that it also harms GDP growth.
While Kelly emphasized that the government shouldn't find itself on the brink of shutdown and is hopeful that the current situation does not reach that point, he said that "what's going on now demonstrates that we need to consider some other things."
The consideration of this bill may end up on the Senate floor if Johnson has his way. The Wisconsin Republican told Newsweek that "this is not going away" and that he plans to continue pushing Schumer to bring the bill to the floor, saying "there'll be all kinds of tools we can potentially use" to bring a vote forward.
As with the spending bills, for this measure to be signed into law it must receive support from both the Senate and House. While some hard-right House Republicans have expressed a willingness to let the government shutdown if it means getting an agreement from Speaker Kevin McCarthy to push forward deeper spending cuts, most oppose a federal shutdown.
Lankford said he's "very optimistic" that the bill could pass the House, citing its support among Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. The Oklahoman said he's received positive comments from people who see this bill as a solution to an ongoing problem. What may be the biggest inhibitor, he said, is getting a grasp on what a future without federal shutdowns may look like.
"The only thing people hate worse than the status quo here is changing the status quo," Lankford told Newsweek . "No one wants to see government shutdowns and see that constant, but everyone's always asking, 'But if we do this, what could happen in the unknown?' And so I think that's the biggest obstacle."
Tags
Who is online
414 visitors
For those who like resolving problems
Excluding those who will say no just for the sake of spite and argument.
I could support this bill. It should also include not paying Congresspeople and their staffs until they get their jobs done.
It should cut their salaries to the median salary of the districts they are supposed to represent. There is no reason they should be making 6 figures for the little work they actually do.
You mean permanently?
Of course.
You realize that this bill would only go into effect when there's no budget right? The rest of the time they set their own pay rate per the Constitution.
The current level of spending IS THE PROBLEM.
Is anyone surprised that the political establishment opposes any sort of solution that prevents impasse? Triggered continuing resolutions aren't a perfect solution. May not be the best solution, either. But it will stop the threat of government shutdowns. The looney toon minorities in both parties lose a big chunk of their power to hold America hostage.
These government shutdowns have never, ever reduced government spending or the size of government. 85 pct of the national debt has been created since Newt Gingrich led the Republican revolution. 60 pct of the national debt has been created since the TEA Party faction gained power in the Republican Party. The Small Government nimrods have been lying their asses off for 30 years. These 'fiscal responsibility' Republicans have been playing us for suckers. And they've been right.
In reality the threat of government shutdown has ballooned the size of government. Why else would Chuck Schumer prevent a vote on legislation to avoid government shutdowns? Government shutdowns have become a tool of the political left to grow government.
Why does this put the Dems in a bind and not Reps? I would think it ties the hands of any politician when they want to use funding as leverage.
No shutdown.