The Senate rejected a plan to forever put an end to government shutdowns and automatically fund the government whenever Congress fails to pass a budget. The vote on the Eliminate Government Shutdowns Act was introduced by a Republican but voted down on a bipartisan basis, 37-61.
Government shutdowns can cost billions of dollars; they can harm the economy if they drag on and, as members of Congress admit, they don’t serve the American people. The sponsors of the bill believe funding should be automatically extended on a two-week basis every time Congress misses a deadline.
Download the SAN app today to stay up-to-date with Unbiased. Straight Facts™.
Point phone camera here
“It’s a circus, and this is no way to run a government. There’s no way to run any organization. It’s ridiculous,” Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, told Straight Arrow News.
Moreno was one of the 37 Republicans who voted in favor of the legislation.
“We’re here in D.C., where the vortex of nonsense is, but out in regular America, this is viewed really negatively,” Moreno added.
Moreno hopes that one day government shutdowns will be a thing of the past and people in Washington will look back and say, “Remember when we used to do that? Wasn’t that silly?”
The bill was introduced by Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., and Rep. Dusty Johnson, R-S.D.
Here’s how the Johnson and Johnson bill would have worked:
If Congress fails to approve a budget by the end of the fiscal year, which is always Sept. 30, there would be an automatic extension of funding for 14 days. The previous year’s budget would be copied and pasted and all government departments and agencies would receive two weeks of funding.
If Congress fails to approve a budget within those 14 days, federal departments would automatically get another two weeks worth of funding, and that process continues until Congress does its job.
“If we get to Sept. 30, we should have a mechanism where the government doesn’t automatically shut down like this. That would be a very important reform,” Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., told SAN.
Even those who voted against it say shutdowns are bad.
“It’s an indication that the system is breaking down between the legislature and the executive and all of us together,” Sen. Peter Welch, D-Vt., told SAN. “My strong preference is no shutdowns. But it does require that a president be the convener in chief, as we’ve always had in the past.”
This isn’t the first time lawmakers have tried this. Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., introduced a similar bill in 2023. That didn’t go anywhere either.
