Was the Government Shutdown Crisis Averted?
Photo by Office of Speaker Mike Johnson, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
The House passed a continuing resolution to kick the budget can down the road until early 2024. The bill, which funds some parts of the government through January 19 and others through February 2, will now advance to the Senate. Congress must act to fund the government by 11:59 pm on Friday to avert a shutdown.
The use of Groundhog Day in the CR is appropriate since shutdown crises are common, particularly when Republicans control the House of Representatives. The most recent crisis was less than two months ago in September. That crisis was averted by a deal that cost Kevin McCarthy his speakership.
The current deal is similar to the September agreement in that a bipartisan group of Republicans and Democrats acted together to find consensus. The new deal passed the House with 336 in favor, but that breakdown included 127 Republicans and 209 Democrats. That means that the Republican caucus was very nearly split down the middle with 93 nays.
It seems likely that the Senate will pass the compromise legislation, but the bigger question is what the vote means for Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.). Johnson’s predecessor was removed for reaching across the aisle against the wishes of the MAGA fringe, just as Johnson has now done.
The difference may be that McCarthy seemed to be the target of a personal vendetta by Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.). Gaetz took quite a bit of flack from fellow Republicans for triggering the removal vote for McCarthy so, in addition to the lack of personal animosity between Johnson and the fringe right, Johnson’s opponents might think twice about attacking him directly.
I’m encouraged to see the two parties working together, but it will be interesting to see whether Johnson gets blowback from the fiscal hardliners for extending current spending levels.
The Freedom Caucus has tanked the rules votes to bring approps bills to the floor, and Johnson sent them home. My read is the honeymoon is now over.Report
I have read in several sources that something went wrong with the GOP’s staffers and they got their priorities reversed on the deal. To wit, the DoD, border security, Agricultural pork etc ended up expiring sooner than the rest of the priorities and this represents a huge fish up because that puts the advantage squarely in the Dems court.
I’m very puzzled how it happened and if it’s a huge self own. Inexperience? Ineptitude? Did Jeffries pull some sly switcheroo? Of is this just spin?Report
I think (i) they’re just dumbasses and (ii) an underrated factor in the path that got them where they are is how many people had personal grudges against Kevin McCarthy, as opposed to any kind of actual legislative principles and priorities, i.e. there was a lot more concern about sticking it to him as an individual than willingness to, you know, read the legislation.Report
I have heard rumors that more and more laws are being written by lobbyists rather than congresscritters themselves and, if that’s the case, we may be finding ourselves in places where lobbyists don’t really visit the dumber members of the caucus anymore.
Which means that we now have people who are cribbing doing the whole “law” thing. And while I would be surprised if the congresscritters could even find staffers who are dumber than they are, you have to be at least this not-dumb to crib successfully and it looks like the new-and-improved staffers are not at least that not-dumb.Report
Granted that my experience is getting rather out of date, but chances are good no self-respecting group of coders would tolerate an SCCS as bad as whatever Congress uses for bills.
My first year working for the Colorado legislature, one of the more senior people asked me why I had caught on so quickly to the way bills and committee reports were written. (This seemed to be a nightmare for most people, and if I knew something that could be added to the training, it would be.) “Look,” I told him, “It’s just diff and patch, done badly by hand by humans, using a horrible syntax.”Report
That tracks with my own priors which is why I’m interrogating them. My problem is I haven’t been able to find confirmation that the base story; the GOP transposed the split CR and basically fished themselves; outside of Maga or left partisan sources.Report
Everyone got what they wanted, right? No shutdown but the people who wanted to be on the record as opposing the deal got to be heard. The can is further down the road but separate bills can be introduced next time. I don’t know if Johnson will survive as Speaker, but whoever is Speaker will face the same problem and he’s more likely than most to push for separate bills, so he’s not in a bad spot.Report
He has pushed separate bills for the last month. Just yesterday the Freedom Caucus tanked the procedural votes on a couple of those bills. His being form that caucus isn’t insulating him from blowback.Report
As far as I’ve been able to tell the Dems got generally what they want. More than they asked for in a round about way. I’m certainly not complaining. Johnson might even get some Dem support if the wingers try and bounce him- who knows?Report
So we’re describing a compromise as having the traits of a compromise. So why the conjecture that something went wrong?Report
Gee, could be the months of the GOP openly REFUSING to compromise with Democrats, much less compromise inside their own house.Report
That’s not true and you know it. We discussed the last compromise at length.Report
So Kevin McCarthy DIDN’T tell reporters multiple times he didn’t need Democrats to pass a CR? And he wasn’t ousted for putting forward a CR that was devoid of cuts the Freedom Caucus wanted?
Fascinating?Report
I’ve seen some crowing in certain partisan left wing sources and some kvetching in certain partisan right wing sources that the GOP’s intended sequence of expirations of the CR have been inverted to the detriment of the GOP’s strategy. But, as these are coming from wingers on both sides, I’m uncertain as to the veracity of those complaints.
I am not certain this was a coup or a fish up which is why I was soliciting opinions on the matter. Certainly as a Dem I’m pretty chuffed at the outcome. Three more months of budget policy cribbed from the last Dem trifecta is aces in my books.Report
Now *this* I have a problem with. I just looked up “chuffed” and it has two definitions: pleased and displeased. Some compromises are too far!Report
Sinople is a color. What color, you ask? Red. And Green.Report
I couldn’t be more (or less) chuffed.Report
Being half Canadian I stick strictly to the British definition which means pleased.Report
“Half-Canadian”? Another compromise!Report
Hah! I think of it more of a having my cake and eating it too scenario. Virtually a cheat code.Report
Here’s a link to the continuing resolution text, as engrossed in the House, including a link to the law the resolution modifies.
Status is passed by the House, passed by the Senate, and presented to the President. One amendment was offered in the Senate and rejected. So that’s almost certainly the correct text.
As I read it, the group of appropriations that includes Defense goes with the Feb 2 date. I won’t guarantee that; I was flipping back and forth between the two documents and keeping track in my head, not actually assembling the modified statutory text.
I suspect a drafting error. Someone lost track of which group of appropriations “…sections 101(1), 101(4), 101(10), 101(12), 134, and 137…” referred to.Report
Fascinating. Thank you Michael.Report
https://www.govexec.com/management/2023/11/congress-averts-shutdown-after-senate-approves-two-tiered-cr/392065/Report
Probably nobody got what they wanted, but enough people got something they could accept.Report