Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Congress is still working on government spending three months after the deadline ... again

Sen. Patrick Leahy and Sen. Richard Shelby

Chairman Patrick Leahy (left) and ranking members Richard Shelby lead the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Caroline Brehman-Pool/Getty Images

While the elections may seem like an end to a cycle of policymaking before a new Congress gets sworn in, the reality is that lawmakers are still trying to work their way through important legislation before the end of the year.

The biggest item on the agenda is a bill to fund the federal government and avoid a shutdown – an issue that was supposed to have been resolved before October but has slid into the holiday season.

In fact, in the past five decades, Congress has only completed the appropriations process on schedule three times.


If the system was working properly, the House and Senate Appropriations committees would develop 12 spending bills in line with the jurisdictions of their subcommittees. The chambers would then pass those twelve bills and resolve any differences before the government’s new fiscal year begins Oct. 1. That virtually never happens.

“The failure of Congress to pass individual appropriations spending bills is the result of the overall Congressional budget process being broken and routinely ignored,” said Michael Murphy, chief of staff for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, who explained that the breakdown in appropriating is one piece of a dysfunctional budget process.

The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 set a timeline that begins with the president introducing a budget on the first Monday in February, continuing through congressional passage of a budget by mid April and then the Appropriations committees completing their work by June 30, in time for the new fiscal year starting three months later.

This year, the House of Representatives passed six spending bills but the Senate did not pass any, meaning all twelve must be rolled into one massive bill known as an “omnibus.” In most years, even the omnibus is not passed by the end of the fiscal year. Instead, the lawmakers pass one or more “continuing resolutions” that extend funding temporarily while they work on the final bill or bills.

The government is currently operating under a continuing resolution that expires Dec. 15. Lawmakers have been negotiating a spending bill for the rest of the year but will likely require another CR to buy more time. Leaders may try to attach other priority legislation to the omnibus, such as a bill to reform how Congress counts electoral votes, in order to get a few more things done before the end of the year.

“Congress has not passed a real concurrent budget resolution since 2015, and has only passed all individual appropriations bills on time by the end of the fiscal year four times in the last 50 years,” Murphy said. “Polarization of Congress and the fact that Congress seems to act only upon a crisis deadline has contributed to this reality.”

The breakdown in the process results in a lack of government transparency and proper planning, according to Murphy.

“As a result, we continue to shirk responsibility for weighing the tradeoffs inherent in effectively managing the finances and programs of the federal government,” he explained. “The use of one or more CRs is problematic for government agencies who are unable to effectively plan for their programs given the constant uncertainty surrounding their funding levels.”

Many spending cycles begin with congressional leaders and Appropriations chairs announcing an intent to follow the process and pass the discretionary spending bills by the start of the fiscal year. However, that almost never happens. (“Discretionary” spending is that which Congress can set each year. “Mandatory” spending – such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid” – is required by other laws.)

Congress has only avoided the use of continuing resolutions three times since fiscal 1977, according to the Congressional Research Service. Often, the CR lasts until December, but Congress may use more than one and there have been occasionals when continuing resolutions have been needed into late winter and even the spring.

Returning to regular order requires a commitment from congressional leadership, Murphy said.

“Congress needs a sufficient number of leaders in both parties who will stand up and call for going back to basics, which includes coming up with an actual budget and passing it in both chambers by the required deadline of April 15 to begin the budget process,” he said. “At the same time, recognizing the process has failed to work for years, we need to undertake comprehensive budget process reforms that result in a more accountable and transparent process that can achieve fiscally responsible outcomes.”


Read More

New Year’s Resolutions for Congress – and the Country

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) (L) and Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX) lead a group of fellow Republicans through Statuary Hall on the way to a news conference on the 28th day of the federal government shutdown at the U.S. Capitol on October 28, 2025 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Chip Somodevilla

New Year’s Resolutions for Congress – and the Country

Every January 1st, many Americans face their failings and resolve to do better by making New Year’s Resolutions. Wouldn’t it be delightful if Congress would do the same? According to Gallup, half of all Americans currently have very little confidence in Congress. And while confidence in our government institutions is shrinking across the board, Congress is near rock bottom. With that in mind, here is a list of resolutions Congress could make and keep, which would help to rebuild public trust in Congress and our government institutions. Let’s start with:

1 – Working for the American people. We elect our senators and representatives to work on our behalf – not on their behalf or on behalf of the wealthiest donors, but on our behalf. There are many issues on which a large majority of Americans agree but Congress can’t. Congress should resolve to address those issues.

Keep ReadingShow less
Two groups of glass figures. One red, one blue.

Congressional paralysis is no longer accidental. Polarization has reshaped incentives, hollowed out Congress, and shifted power to the executive.

Getty Images, Andrii Yalanskyi

How Congress Lost Its Capacity to Act and How to Get It Back

In late 2025, Congress fumbled the Affordable Care Act, failing to move a modest stabilization bill through its own procedures and leaving insurers and families facing renewed uncertainty. As the Congressional Budget Office has warned in multiple analyses over the past decade, policy uncertainty increases premiums and reduces insurer participation (see, for example: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61734). I examined this episode in an earlier Fulcrum article, “Governing by Breakdown: The Cost of Congressional Paralysis,” as a case study in congressional paralysis and leadership failure. The deeper problem, however, runs beyond any single deadline or decision and into the incentives and procedures that now structure congressional authority. Polarization has become so embedded in America’s governing institutions themselves that it shapes how power is exercised and why even routine governance now breaks down.

From Episode to System

The ACA episode wasn’t an anomaly but a symptom. Recent scholarship suggests it reflects a broader structural shift in how Congress operates. In a 2025 academic article available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN), political scientist Dmitrii Lebedev reaches a stark conclusion about the current Congress, noting that the 118th Congress enacted fewer major laws than any in the modern era despite facing multiple time-sensitive policy deadlines (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5346916). Drawing on legislative data, he finds that dysfunction is no longer best understood as partisan gridlock alone. Instead, Congress increasingly exhibits a breakdown of institutional capacity within the governing majority itself. Leadership avoidance, procedural delay, and the erosion of governing norms have become routine features of legislative life rather than temporary responses to crisis.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump’s ‘America First’ is now just imperialism

Donald Trump Jr.' s plane landed in Nuuk, Greenland, where he made a short private visit, weeks after his father, U.S. President-elect Donald Trump, suggested Washington annex the autonomous Danish territory.

(Ritzau Scanpix/AFP via Getty Images)

Trump’s ‘America First’ is now just imperialism

In early 2025, before Donald Trump was even sworn into office, he sent a plane with his name in giant letters on it to Nuuk, Greenland, where his son, Don Jr., and other MAGA allies preened for cameras and stomped around the mineral-rich Danish territory that Trump had been casually threatening to invade or somehow acquire like stereotypical American tourists — like they owned it already.

“Don Jr. and my Reps landing in Greenland,” Trump wrote. “The reception has been great. They and the Free World need safety, security, strength, and PEACE! This is a deal that must happen. MAGA. MAKE GREENLAND GREAT AGAIN!”

Keep ReadingShow less
The Common Cause North Carolina, Not Trump, Triggered the Mid-Decade Redistricting Battle

Political Midterm Election Redistricting

Getty images

The Common Cause North Carolina, Not Trump, Triggered the Mid-Decade Redistricting Battle

“Gerrymander” was one of seven runners-up for Merriam-Webster’s 2025 word of the year, which was “slop,” although “gerrymandering” is often used. Both words are closely related and frequently used interchangeably, with the main difference being their function as nouns versus verbs or processes. Throughout 2025, as Republicans and Democrats used redistricting to boost their electoral advantages, “gerrymander” and “gerrymandering” surged in popularity as search terms, highlighting their ongoing relevance in current politics and public awareness. However, as an old Capitol Hill dog, I realized that 2025 made me less inclined to explain the definitions of these words to anyone who asked for more detail.

“Did the Democrats or Republicans Start the Gerrymandering Fight?” is the obvious question many people are asking: Who started it?

Keep ReadingShow less