Last week, the House had rejected a measure that would have expanded federal funding until October 31st, with all democrats and 21 Republicans joining in opposition. With this, the House had been paralyzed from passing a short-term funding bill to keep the government open beyond September 30th, effectively causing a possible government shutdown, as funding for federal agencies would have run out. However, in a last minute reversal, the House has voted 335 to 91 to approve a 45-day extension of federal funding, with the Senate also approving the extension in an overwhelming majority of 88-9. The bill was supported by a large majority of Democrats, with 90 of the votes opposing the bill in the House being Republicans.
To elaborate on the government shutdown, the Constitution states that the Treasury Department cannot spend money without a law authorizing it. Under a statute known as the Anti-deficiency Act, agencies are required to cease operations — with certain exceptions — in the absence of funding authorized by Congress. The act prohibits “making or authorizing an expenditure from, or creating or authorizing an obligation under, any appropriation or fund in excess of the amount available in the appropriation or fund unless authorized by law”(GAO). Thus, if measures were not taken to counteract the rejection of funding, the government would cease to have its agencies functioning, leading to many aspects of society being hindered.
"Tonight, bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate voted to keep the government open, preventing an unnecessary crisis that would have inflicted needless pain on millions of hard working Americans," President Joe Biden said in a statement after the passage. "This bill ensures that active-duty troops will continue to get paid, travelers will be spared airport delays, millions of women and children will continue to have access to vital nutrition assistance, and so much more” (CBS).
Although the bill provided funding to avert the shutdown, there was a noticeable absence in funding for the war in Ukraine, which is expected to appear in a later bill. This whole ordeal is a demonstration of the system's dependence on the national government, and its modern role within society. In the early days of the Constitution, the national government was indeed centralized, and held more power than it did before, serving as an integral part of the Federalist system. However, through crises such as these, it is apparent the national government has amassed more power throughout the years, even to the point where this one unpassed bill can cause a shutdown and affect millions of citizens.
From my perspective, it is terrifying to believe that a single bill can completely halt the processes of the entire nation. Although I am mostly for the strengthening of national governments to regulate businesses and create social welfare programs, I am also now aware that dependence can also lead to a collapse in the entire system. In this case, the government agencies’ reliance on the national government for funding led to a possibility of a shutdown. Even though I personally prefer a stronger national government over state bodies, this averted crisis admittedly has portrayed the dangers of a system which relies on one body to function properly.
-Daigo Hayashi
- Office, U. S. G. A. (2023, February 8). Antideficiency Act Resources. U.S. GAO. https://www.gao.gov/legal/appropriations-law/resources
- WP Company. (2023, October 1). Congress averts government shutdown with last-minute scramble. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/09/30/government-shutdown-averted/
5 comments:
I agree that this situation with the government shutdown exemplifies a flaw in having a centralized, stronger national government. Because we depend on our national government for funding in many circumstances, when it's unable to provide, it can throw off the whole system.
In Brutus 1, the Anti-Federalists described their concerns that the United States would be too diverse and vast to function under one national government with the Constitution. This hyper-pluralist concern can now be exemplified in this situation where we see so many clashing opinions when discussing this budget. Since the representatives from each state are bringing their own ideas and interests to the bill, it may take more time to deliberate. Moreover, with firmly divided political parties also at play, it may be even more difficult to make compromises.
While this situation is not ideal and brings up concerns about the efficacy of the national government, I'm happy to see that both sides understand the cost of a government shutdown and have agreed to pass this temporary bill to alleviate some economic pressures while they debate the budget.
Wow, I am shocked at the fact that disagreement over one bill can lead to so many government agencies being unable to function. While it does seem important for the national government to retain tight control over these agencies in order to regulate their power, I think it is more important for some of these agencies to be able to function regardless of the disagreements going on at upper levels of government. I have also read that in case of a government shutdown, some jobs would require workers to keep reporting to work without pay. This seems like a severe flaw in the system because it leaves people with no good choice: forcing these workers to report to work without pay, which goes against many of the ideals that America preaches, or not being able to do anything as these public officials stop reporting to work, leading to delays and even threats to national security since immigration will not be regulated. I think that it would make more sense for some agencies to have funding regardless of what Congress votes to spend on, and only if Congress specifically calls to reduce or curb funding to these agencies will they be affected.
I think that this bill comes to show that the system is flawed. Although the national goverment should have control over those governemt angencies I do agree with Lipika that the "agencies [should] be able to function regardless of the disagreements going on at upper levels of governmen." People having to go to work without pay goes againts the many standrd beliefs that the United States has. Shuting down the goverment would lead to many things not being regulated that would effect every working person. The goverment agencies should have funding aside that would prevent this from happening or be less dependent on the national goverment although I see how that would bring other complications.
Thank you for all of these comments! I definitely agree with Lipika that government bodies should still be able to function regardless of what is going on beneath or above the chain of command, and I appreciated that you brought that up. I definitely resonate with Carole on the basis that they were able to barely prevent this shutdown, but as we know now (10/5/23), this came with the cost of the head of the House being ousted from his position. Although I don't agree with 99% of his policies (he's a republican), I do respect that he was able to negotiate this bill to pull through. I hope that in the future the House and Senate are able to find better ways to communicate, and at the very least prevent basic government functions from being hindered.
The passing of these 12 appropriations bills has been a part of our system for around 5 decades and has only been passed "on time" 4 times: 1977, 1989, 1995, and 1997 (those last three years they were still late in passing the budget blueprint). So while the scare of the "shutdown" spreads throughout the public at these times, in no way is this a surprise. With the heavy polarization growing with each following year, it is almost certain that decisions on these bills will become harder to conclude upon, every single time. Every following year, it may only seem normal now that we push the deadlines later and later until compromises can be made. The finalization of the budget resolution has been late for 30 of the past 49 fiscal years. Rather than falling through with this, 9 of 15 past years, the House and Senate have instead adopted legislative substitutes called deeming resolutions.
Obviously, as politics in our nation continue to become more polarized, such compromise in these decisions will take longer to make, and we may never meet every single deadline without having a strong compromise ready. However, I believe this is what strengthens our nation, the connected idea of having a checks and balances system. The idea that a bicameral legislative branch will prevent tyranny, and while arriving at a compromise will source tension, the eventual decision will find a more well-structured and "smarter" conclusion.
Sources:
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/09/13/congress-has-long-struggled-to-pass-spending-bills-on-time/
Post a Comment