
Graffiti-style illustration of the Republican elephant mascot and Democratic donkey mascot in a confrontation. By PatrickRolands/stock.adobe.com.
As Dr. Jim Denison described in yesterday’s Daily Article, Congress has until the end of today to fund the government, or at least parts of it will shut down starting tomorrow. If it feels like we’ve been here before, well, you’re not wrong. Congress found itself in essentially the same situation six months ago when it kicked the can down the road to today.
That crisis was averted after Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer gathered just enough support from his party to help pass the Republican-led continuing resolution (CR), which was supposed to buy leaders from both parties enough time to pass a new budget. That didn’t happen, and if the rhetoric coming out of yesterday’s meeting with President Trump is any indication, Democrats are unlikely to yield again.
But while party divisions continue to dominate the narrative as both sides attempt to shift the blame across the aisle, the simple fact is that neither party has been willing to do what’s necessary to actually pass a budget.
In fact, Congress has only passed all the required appropriations measures to fund the government for a given year four times since 1977, with the most recent instance occurring nearly thirty years ago. And even back in 1996, it took a six-bill omnibus package—a bill that funds multiple areas of the government at once—to get them over the finish line in time.
That’s not how this is supposed to work.
A flawed approach to governance
When Congress adopted the current format in 1974, the idea was to split government funding into multiple bills, under the theory that it would be easier to find common ground when focusing on one area rather than on the budget as a whole. As such, under the current arrangement, the House and Senate are charged with passing twelve spending bills a year—one for each pair of the House and Senate appropriations committees.
Instead, Congress has come to rely on either grouping them through omnibus bills or passing CRs to extend the current funding levels while they continue to negotiate an actual budget. Given that 147 of the 149 appropriations bills signed into law since 2012 were passed through an omnibus bill, this flawed approach to governance has unfortunately become the new normal.
However, the latest saga feels different in a way that could have massive implications for the future of our government.
Why Trump doesn’t seem to fear a shutdown
The last time Congress faced the prospect of a shutdown, neither side appeared overly eager to see large parts of the government shuttered. However, in the six months since, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act provided alternative sources of funding for large parts of the Defense Department and the Department of Homeland Security—two areas of government that Republicans are typically most concerned about.
In addition, the Office of Management and Budget sent a memo throughout its agency instructing division leaders to “use this opportunity to consider Reduction in Force (RIF) notices for all employees in programs, projects, or activities (PPAs)” that meet three criteria:
- They are without discretionary funding once the shutdown begins
- They are not funded by alternative measures like the One Big Beautiful Bill
- They are not “consistent with the President’s priorities.”
Given that the Trump administration is primarily responsible for determining which workers in the executive branch are essential, the prevailing belief is that Trump could use the shutdown as a means of reducing employment and penalizing parts of the government that his administration deems either superfluous or standing in the way of its agenda.
The prospect of turning that power over to Trump was enough to motivate Schumer and other democrats to vote with Republicans six months ago, and we should know by the end of the day if the same will be true this time. However, it seems unlikely, and the government they’re left with once the shutdown ends could look quite a bit different as a result.
A sin we all commit
One of the primary flaws in our current political system is the degree to which Americans on both sides are tempted to overlook abuses of power when they’re used to advance their preferred agenda. Assigning blame for the current budget situation to Republicans or Democrats is pointless because, on a basic level, both parties govern the same. It may look different based on which priorities they’re pushing, but the path they take to get there has become so well-worn over the last few decades that it’s difficult to see either side straying from it anytime soon.
However, the wrong choice doesn’t become less wrong just because someone else made it first.
Every parent of more than one child has had the delightful experience of breaking up a fight in which one kid used the “she started it” or “he hit me first” excuse to explain away their own bad behavior. That same rationale is no less immature or sinful when utilized by our nation’s leaders than when it comes from the mouth of a child.
But, if we’re being honest with ourselves, we probably don’t have to think all that far back to remember a time when we made the same mistake.
Scripture is clear that another person’s bad choices will never justify our own (2 Corinthians 5:10), and a fundamental part of genuine repentance is owning up to your sin. “I’m sorry, but…” is not the sign of a truly penitent heart, and it’s an insult to God to think he won’t know the difference.
So, are there any areas in your life where you’re tempted to try to blame others for your own mistakes? Are there any sins for which you’ve yet to fully seek God’s forgiveness?
While it can be tempting—and justified—to complain about the state of our politics today, know that Christ cares far more about the state of your heart and the degree to which it is aligned with his own.
Let’s start there.
Quote of the day:
“No constitution for self-government can save a people from voluntarily ending their own reign. ‘A republic, if you can keep it’ wasn’t just a foreboding turn of phrase—it was a statement of historical literacy.” —Sarah Isgur
Our latest website resources:
- Embracing the wonder after Forrest Frank’s miraculous healing
- What God says about you
- Attack on Michigan church leaves at least four dead
- James Comey indicted by a grand jury on two counts
- Jimmy Kimmel, free speech debate, Erika Kirk forgives, rapture thoughts, Tylenol update & a huge sports weekend | CB Ep. 38